Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Nottingham (Central Division), in the room of Sir Albert James Bennett, Baronet (Manor of Northstead).—[Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Fylde Water Board, Oldham and Rochdale) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

KIRKCALDY CORPORATION ORDER CON-FIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Kirkcaldy Corporation," presented by Mr. William Adamson; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (KIDDERMINSTER AND LLANELLY) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Kidderminster and Llanelly," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (SITUATION).

Earl WINTERTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is able to give the House any further general news about the situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I have received a telegram with reference to the
disturbances at Sholapur, but it adds very little to what has already been published. I have also received a more general telegram from the Government of India which I will read:
In the North-West Frontier Province there has been no change of importance since our communiqué was issued on 5th May. In the City of Peshawar the situation is tranquil; the civil power is still supported in the city by the presence of troops. Generally the situation is well under control, despite riots in various places following on the arrest of Gandhi, for which the Government were well prepared. The spirit of the troops and the police is excellent.

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received a request from influential Indian commercial and trade bodies urging that he should take steps towards conciliation by negotiations?

Mr. BENN: The conciliatory policy of the Government stands, as it always stands; but I have not seen the document to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the document if it comes into his hands?

Mr. BENN: Certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRESMONSELL: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what Vote will be taken next Wednesday?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I understand that the Board of Trade Vote will be put down for next Wednesday.

Orders of the Day — CANAL BOATS BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.
I am well aware that strict limitations are imposed by the Rules of the House on what can be said in moving a Motion of this kind, and I shall confine myself to two or three points which seem to me to be valid in considering this Motion. The first is that the Bill has been altered in Committee to a degree which makes it almost unrecognisable as the Bill which received a Second Reading in this House on 31st January last. In the second place, since the Second Reading of the Bill evidence has accumulated in all directions of the strong opposition which is felt by those engaged in this canal boat traffic. May I mention some of the changes which have been made in the Bill in Committee? The original Bill was described as
A Bill to amend the Canal Boats Acts, 1887 and 1884, and the Education Act, 1921, so far as it relates to children on canal boats.
The first two Clauses of the original Bill have been altered. Clause 1 of the original Bill read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the Canal Boats Act, 1929, and shall be construed as one with the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 and 1884, which Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Canal Boats Acts, 1877 to 1929.
Clause 2 of the original Bill was:
On and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, no child under the age of fifteen years shall reside or travel on or in a canal boat.
Clause 1, as amended in Committee, now reads:
Subject as hereinafter provided, on and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, no child over the age of five years and below the age at which, under the law for the time being in force, his parents cease to be under an obligation
to cause him to receive efficient elementary instruction, shall reside in a canal boat except—

"(i) during the period between the last school hour in any week of the school which the child is attending and the first school hour of that school in the following week; and
"(ii) during the period between the end of any school term of the school which he is attending and the beginning of the next school term of that school:

Provided that the residence of a child in a canal boat during any period as regards which a registered medical practitioner certifies that in the interests of his own health or the health of other children he ought not to attend school shall not be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of this section.
In place of the bald provision in the Bill as it came before the House for Second Reading that no child under 15 years shall reside or travel on a canal boat, we have the very different provision applying the Bill only to children over the age of five years and up to the age at which children leave school and allowing children to reside on canal boats at all other times. We have also an important proviso in the Clause in relation to the health of children. Clause 2 of the amended Bill is an even wider departure from the provisions of the original Bill. Clause 2 says:
On and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, no woman or child below the age at which under the law for the time being in force his parents cease to be under an obligation to cause him to receive efficient elementary instruction, shall reside in any canal boat while it is being used for the conveyance of manure, night soil, or refuse, or any other foul or offensive cargo.
This brings the question of the health and welfare of women on certain boats under review for the first time. It was not dealt with in the original Bill. These are some of the differences between the Bill as it came before the House for Second Reading and as amended in Committee. I am well aware that the promoters of the Bill will take the obvious point that some of these alterations have been put in as a result of Amendments moved by those who opposed the Bill in Committee. That is true, and some of them have been put in by the promoters themselves, but, from the constitutional point of view, that argument is not valid in considering a Motion of this kind, because it has always been held that when a Bill is fundamentally altered in Com-
mittee upstairs, the House is open to be convinced that the alterations make a strong case for recommitting the Bill or sending it to a Select Committee. It has always been held that there are limits beyond which a Standing Committee cannot go in altering a Bill, and that if they go beyond these limits the Bill has to be sent to a Select Committee or recommitted. So much for the alterations which have been made in the Bill.
Now I come to the second point which is referred to in my Motion—the question of the petition of persons interested in the welfare of the women and children living on canal boats. The only information that we have on the subject of the conditions on board canal boats has been obtained through the agency of a Committee appointed by this House, or appointed by a Minister. It is the evidence of what is usually known as the Chamberlain Committee, which reported as long ago as 1920, when the conditions were different from what they are to-day. We who oppose the Bill have been astonished since the Second Reading stage—we knew on the Second Reading that there was opposition to the Bill in many quarters—to discover that the whole of the people employed on the canal boats are in opposition to the Bill, not merely as it passed Second Reading but as it has since passed through Committee. Not only does the opposition come from those employed on the boats. Before this House passes a Bill which is opposed by all the people who will be affected by it, there ought to be an opportunity for a Select Committee to take evidence and to hear the views of the people concerned.
Apart from that, there is another interesting fact about the opposition to the Bill. Every single social worker amongst the canal boat people with whom we have got into touch—clergymen, lay missioners, people who have devoted their lives to social reform, and have assisted in educating the canal boat children—is opposed to the Bill. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite differ from that view let them get up and mention the name of any single social worker who has had experience of these people and is in favour of the Bill. I shall be interested to hear who he is. We can produce the names of many clergymen, lay missioners, and of a gentleman who is an official of
the Church Army and has been in charge of the school in which these children are educated. All these people are opposed to the Bill. Another point which should influence the House is that among these social workers we have found a strong opinion that it is possible under the existing law, with good will and if energy is shown on the part of the Board of Education, greatly to improve the educational facilities which are available for these children. In other words there is no need to alter the law. It is obvious that inquiry by a Select Committee would be by far the best method by which information could be conveyed to the House, so that when the House is in possession of that information it could decide how best the law should be amended, if indeed amendment is required at all. I have not been able to find any evidence that such amendment is required.
There is another reason for the Bill going to a Select Committee. We have had practically no guidance on the Bill, except from junior members of the Government. Their assistance has been very useful so far as it has gone, and I have no complaint to make against the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for what they have done in trying to assist the Committee upstairs; but in the Committee stage of the Bill we have not had a single statement from the person who, above all others, ought to express an opinion on a Bill of this kind, and that is the President of the Board of Education. He refused to speak on the Second Reading, and, although present in Committee, took no part in the Debates. Throughout the Committee stage we were also without the assistance of a single Law Officer. I do not wish to make a complaint against those members of the Government, because I realise that they have been very hard worked and that there have been other Committees sitting, but we do say that it is not right, on a Bill which affects the happiness and welfare of a considerable section of the barge population of the country, that we should be without the assistance and the opinion of members of the Government who are most concerned.
If hon. Members will look at the Bill as it has passed the Committee, it will
be obvious that had a Law Officer been present during the Committee stage the Bill would not have passed in the form in which it left the Committee. I think that some of the Amendments made in the Bill, although the promoters and ourselves are responsible for them, would have been in some better form if there had been a Law Officer present to advise. It is not the business of the opponents of the Bill to make the wording of the Bill better than it is. All that we have to do is to bring forward arguments in support of our view. I sincerely hope that the House will accept this Motion. If this Bill, instead of applying to only some 3,000 people applied to some 300,000, I do not believe there are many members of the House who would support it as it stands, because they would know what would happen in their own constituencies if they broke up the homes of the people as this Bill proposes to break up the homes of the families on the canal boats.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The promoters of the Bill have been good enough to ask me to take charge of this Bill, and it therefore falls to me to reply very briefly to what the Noble Lord has said. First of all, there was his constitutional point as to the alteration of the Bill in Committee. It has always been the right of Committees to alter Bills, and there is not the slightest doubt that this Bill has been altered, not only within the rights of the Standing Committee, but by the express agreement of the House. I took part in the Debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), whose absence we all deeply regret. I said that the promoters would limit the Bill to the residence of children on canal boats solely in respect of school age. A more specific declaration than that could not have been made. In the second place, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin), I dealt with two very proper questions which were put to me. He asked about the children going on the canal boats during the school holidays, and I replied that that would be considered in Committee. The point was not only considered, but met. I claim that what has happened upstairs was by the express agreement of this House on Second Reading. I know the ingenuity of the Noble Lord well, and I admire it,
but I really have never heard a more courageous, constitutional point put to the House than that which he has put to-day. Another point that he made was that because a large number of very reputable and sincere opponents of the Bill met a number of Members of this House and presented a petition and debated the merits of this Bill, this House in response should send the Bill back to Committee. Constitutional! Why, I leave it at that!

Mr. PALIN: I have not the intimate knowledge possessed by some Members of the House of the lives of the people whose case we are discussing, but I sat for 16 years on a local authority, and heard the reports of the canal boats inspector every month, and I am quite satisfied that it is not necessary for the industry that women and children should have to live on canal boats. I am satisfied that, to a large extent, the industry is carried on under the conditions which this Bill seeks to impose. We are asked to recommit the Bill because certain clergymen and other social workers have opposed it. A certain number of doctors and clergymen can always be found who will support the existing order and oppose any change.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: You very seldom get unanimity among them on that.

Mr. PALIN: The hon. and gallant Member who has just interrupted, makes one feel very sad indeed. He takes my mind back to the days when we were seeking to prevent children of tender years entering the cotton mills.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE.: It was our party who stopped that.

Mr. PALIN: In those days when a gentleman of the type of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just interrupted was asked if he did not think that the inhaling of fluff from cotton would injure the lungs of these infants, said "No" and added that they could get rid of anything of the kind by means of expectoration. This is the type of mentality which some of these gentlemen bring to bear on such questions. I hope for the honour of this nation that the Bill will not be re-committed.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: We have listened to an irrelevant speech and we have also listened to a most persuasive, and; I was going to say, misleading speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). [An HON. MEMBER: "More irrelevance."] That is for Mr. Speaker to decide, and not for hon. Members below the Gangway. It is a scandal if the Parliamentary business of the country cannot be conducted without these interruptions. If it is desired to conduct this Debate in an orderly manner, hon. Members must refrain from interruptions. I desire to reinforce the arguments of the Noble Lord who moved the Motion and to point out, in addition, how completely the House was misled on the Second Reading by sentimental speeches on matters wholly irrelevant to the Bill. It was said that it was detrimental to health to have women and children on the barges.

Mr. MARCH: So it is.

Sir H. NIELD: The hon. Member cannot have read the last report of the medical officer who was called upon to inquire into this matter or the report of the medical officer of health for Birmingham, both of which were quoted ad libitum during the Second Reading Debate. I have carefully re-perused those reports and I have no reason to withdraw what I said previously—that the recent reports of these inspectors are quite opposed to the arguments put forward in support of the Bill.

Mr. SEXTON: It is not so.

Sir H. NIELD: I wish the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) would keep himself under control, though I have been long enough in the House to know that it is constitutionally impossible for him to keep quiet when something is said with which he does not agree. The argument about health which was put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for Second Reading of the Bill was stated in very glowing terms, but now there is no provision in the Bill to prevent these people, on grounds of health, remaining on the boats. Indeed an infant of from one year to five years is to be permitted now, which was not the case in the original Bill—the Bill so carelessly drafted by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Some
of these societies will have to learn from their subscription lists that they had better restrain themselves.

Mr. SPEAKER: On this Debate we must not go into the merits of the Bill. We must confine ourselves to reasons for or against its re-committal.

Sir H. NIELD: I am sorry, but the provocation which I have received must be my excuse for not keeping strictly to the question. I was pointing out that a child of a certain age may now reside on a boat. A child may be born on a boat. My point is that the Bill as it stands at present is wholly different from the original Bill. Statements were also made in the earlier Debates about the exploitation of child labour. What is the value of statements of that kind if those who make them cannot be cross-examined? That is one of the difficulties of legislating for large bodies of people and taking away, in some cases, their property, taking away the amenities of family life, and driving their women and children into the slums. On the point as to child labour, there has not been an atom of cross-examinable evidence, except from the noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) who gave her experiences. I do not challenge her statement, but we have had general evidence from those engaged in missionary work and others who are brought into contact with these people, and they have definitely said that there is no child labour in the full sense of the term and that the casual performance by a child of an occasional act is all that can be alleged.
We are dealing with a class of people who resent this interference and who are supported in their resentment by a great number of the public. A second petition has been lodged bringing the number of signatures against the Bill up to between 1,500 and 2,000. These are law-abiding and respectable people and it is a reflection upon them to interfere with their proper discretion as parents. The only means whereby this question can be decided properly is by submitting it to a Select Committee before whom witnesses can be examined and cross-examined. In regard to the Chamberlain report, that report is ten years old and it is admitted that during those ten years a great im-
provement has taken place in all matters relating to these people. The school attendances are better when the numbers of the children attending are ascertained in the proper way and not by taking one particular school. I ask the House to pause before inflicting a grave injustice on these people, even though only a relatively small number are concerned. I think it was the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who said that this was not a matter of votes and that therefore Members could consider it quite impartially. I urge the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee where evidence can be taken from all those affected.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I support the Motion. The procedure which we are asking the House to adopt is a usual one in connection with a Bill such as this, which vitally affects the lives of a section of the people, whatever the number of people affected may be. The barge population of this country are very anxious as to what will happen to them under this Bill. We had a Bill some time ago with regard to shop hours which affected a section of the people and, in that case, the House agreed to send the Bill to a Select Committee in order that the whole circumstances might be investigated. I think, in the present instance, where there are such differences of opinion, a Select Committee is undoubtedly indicated. I was on the Committee upstairs and I was struck by the genuine differences of opinion existing between the supporters and the opponents of the Bill, and we have had an example of those differences this morning. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) said it had been proved that the health of these children was all right, but the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March) entirely dissented from that view. That is a subject which could be properly investigated before the Select Committee, and, at the same time, they could consider the petition which has been lodged against the Bill.
The deputations from the barge people which attended upstairs a few days ago, have a good deal of evidence to supply as regards the allegations made during the Second Reading Debate and the Committee discussions. A member of one of those deputations handed round the
school-books of his children, to show that the children are not being badly educated, but some hon. Members maintain that they are being badly educated. Surely those hon. Members cannot object to these allegations being thoroughly examined. Further, it has been pointed out that the Bill is now entirely different from its original form and this House should inquire as closely as possible before passing any proposal so drastic. There are a number of things which I should like to see inquired into by a Select Committee. There are, first of all, the allegations regarding the health of the children and the women living on refuse boats, because there are differences of opinion on that question. There is also the allegation as regards child labour. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) told us a story of how she was in a lock-keeper's house and saw a child doing work for which it was quite unfitted. Other allegations of that kind have been made, both in this House and outside. Let them be inquired into properly, under oath. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think it is very necessary that they should be. Hon. Members opposite make these allegations, and they have not the slightest proof.

Mr. EDE: It was the Noble Lady on your side!

Captain HUDSON: She happens to be acting with hon. Members opposite, and we are sufficiently broad-minded on this side to realise that there may be differences of opinion. The most important thing that I should like to have inquired into is the question of where these children are to live if this Bill becomes law. This is the first question which the deputation asked, and it is one which could not be answered. We are told that a number of them are already living on shore with their parents, but we have yet to have an answer to that particular question, and I do not think we should pass legislation saying that children should not reside in a certain place unless at the same time we make it clear where they are supposed to live.
Another important matter to inquire into, which was put forward with great force by the men representing the educational side of the deputation upstairs, was as to some alternative scheme, such
as a floating school or some school along where the canals run. We know, from what we have heard, that tremendous progress has been made along these lines and is being made every year, and we who oppose the Bill say that along those lines we can solve the problem and at the same time not necessarily separate the children from their parents. Finally, there is the question, which is creating tremendous interest, particularly among women's organisations, as to whether women should or should not be allowed to reside on refuse boats. All those points could and should be thoroughly inquired into, the allegations be substantiated or otherwise, and witnesses seen, and then, and only then, can this House really decide whether it will pass a Bill of this kind. By the comments in papers in this country, by correspondence, and in every other way, it must be obvious to every Member of this House that the passage of the Bill is viewed with great apprehension by a very large number of people.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I should have thought the promoters of the Bill would have been the first to rise in their places and say, "We are so confident of the facts on which we base our desire to pass this Bill that we, above all people, welcome the chance to have our case established on oath and to confound our opponents."I cannot help thinking that this is one of those over-sentimental things which are from time to time inflicted upon this House. I believe we are regarded throughout the world as the most hypocritical people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I mean the people as a whole, of whom the Labour party are substantial and accurate representatives. This is a thoroughly hypocritical Bill. People have lived on barges for centuries. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same ones?"] Well, they have been able to transmit vigorous descendants, most of whom will compare favourably with a large number of Members of this House. All over the world people live in boats. If you go to far more ancient civilisations than ours, you will find that when our forbears were running about dyed with woad there were millions of people living in boats in the East, healthy, strong, vigorous, and in the main people who in physique, in handicrafts, in sobriety, and industry would compare favourably with
any of the people of the West. I am speaking of the Chinese, and they live on boats. What is wrong with living on water?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have been waiting anxiously to hear the hon. and learned Member address his arguments to the Motion before the House.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I apologise if I have been swimming at large, but I am arguing that we ought to be able to get at the facts before a Select Committee. I should like to get the Chinese Ambassador to give evidence of the health of those people living on boats. I should like to give evidence myself of living on a small boat. It is true that we were rough and ready and that we ate our herring with our fingers, but we had the answer of the Chinaman, who said his fingers had never been in anybody else's mouth. I should like to see a great deal of evidence. I should like Clause 2 considered, which says that no woman is to reside on a refuse boat, to see whether that is an unhealthy occupation. If disagreeable matters are not to be in the vicinity of the fair sex when engaged in their work, there should be no such things as chambermaids in hotels. In homes where there are no domestics who does the dirty work? It is not the man. He takes good care to dodge his share of it.
I should like to have some evidence about Clause 2, and medical opinion on that question. I should like a few of the mothers who have brought up children and know about the raising of children to give evidence as to the disadvantageous effects of removing children and putting them into cheap and dirty lodgings, in the hands of strangers who are not their parents. I should like evidence as to the psychological, physical, and moral effects, because it is difficult enough for parents to put up with their own children, and almost impossible for people to put up with other people's children. I should like some evidence upon that, and I think it desirable that before we make this extraordinary change we should have much more evidence. We have had the argument repeated again and again that a very small number of people are affected, but because the number is small is the very reason why we should stand up for a
minority. When we have a great mass, a mob, clamouring for a thing, it should be our duty, as men and lovers of freedom, to say "No. We do not care how violent or how great your mob is, we will resist you. We will risk our seats, and we will risk our return to power even." To put it in the words of our national poet:
We will drain our dearest veins,
But we shall be free!

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: I should like to bring before the House the personal knowledge that I have of this question, because I represent Brentford, where, I think, there are more barges and more bargees than in any other part of the country. I should also like to read to the House a few letters that I have had from the children of these people, showing that they have a good education, and that by being able to go back to the barges—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman should defer these remarks to some later stage, because the Motion before the House is merely one for re-committal of the Bill to a Select Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: I support that Motion. From personal knowledge of the physical health of the children on these barges and of the education that they are getting, I think this Motion should be fully supported.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I do not propose to support this re-committal Motion with arguments such as were adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten). I am not able to bring arguments based on China and the barges of antiquity, but I want to go back just as far as the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill. When the Bill was introduced, it was a fundamentally different Measure from the one which we are now considering. Then, it was based on health, but to-day it is based on education. We were told in Committee that a barge was a foul and horrid place, that the cabins were no more than seven feet by seven feet or even less, that people slept there in turns because they could not all sleep there together, that they were unfit almost for human habitation, let alone for habitation by children.
Now we find that the promoters have gone back completely from that attitude, and they are saying that these children, at the most delicate part of their lives, between the time of their birth and the age of five, may live on barges, that they may spend their holidays on barges, that when they have finished their work each week and the time comes for healthy recreation and exercise, they may go back to these foul barges in order to enjoy themselves. How can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that this Bill is at all the same Bill that he introduced into this House and which he took to the Committee upstairs? Another quite new aspect has been brought in since the earlier stages. That was the amazing confession made by the Noble Lady who supported the Bill. She told us how she obtained some of her information. She told us how she slipped unobserved into a hut by the canal side, how she moved with caution a curtain of the window, and, using a periscope or by some other means—

Mr. PALIN: On a point of Order. Is the Noble Lady's method of obtaining information a reason for the re-committal of the Bill?

Captain CROOKSHANK: On the point of Order. If the promoters of the Bill founded their case on that kind of evidence, surely it is all the more argument for having it thrashed out by a Select Committee.

Captain WATERHOUSE: If the hon. Member waits until I come to the point, he will see that it is relevant.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the hon. and gallant Member's argument was directed to getting more direct evidence.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I was saying that the Noble Lady used a periscope or some other means. What did she see? She saw a child straining with all its might at the lock gates endeavouring to do a task which he was quite unable to accomplish. She was appalled by this brutality, and therefore she supported the Bill. This child has now been forgotten. He may go to the lock gates and strain himself, and his mother and sisters may strain themselves, as long as he does not strain himself on the days when the other
children are at school. Such a change in the Bill carries it outside the scope of the Bill to which we gave a Second Reading, and which we discussed for long hours upstairs, and I hope that the House will agree to a recommittal.

Sir D. MACLEAN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 51.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[12 n.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hollins, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hopkin, Daniel
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Alpass, J. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Arnott, John
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Romeril, H. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, Guy


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, James
Kennedy, Thomas
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Batey, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Senders, W. S.


Bellamy, Albert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sandham, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lawrence, Susan
Sexton, James


Brothers, M.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Burgess, F. G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Longden, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Chater, Daniel
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)


Church, Major A. G.
McElwee, A.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Strauss, G R.


Cove, William G.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sutton, J. E.


Daggar, George
Mansfield, W.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Day, Harry
March, S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dukes, C.
Marley, J.
Tillett, Ben


Edmunds, J. E.
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Melville, Sir James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Messer, Fred
Turner, B.


Foot, Isaac
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, Peter
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morley, Ralph
Wellock, Wilfred


Glassey, A. E.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gossling, A. G.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Westwood, Joseph


Gould, F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G.


Gray, Milner
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Groves, Thomas E.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkesto[...])
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Palmer, E. T.
Wise, E. F.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hayday, Arthur
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pole, Major D. G.



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Price, M. P.



NOES.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lymington, Viscount


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon Barnstaple)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Erskins, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Simms, Major-General J.


Ferguson, Sir John
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Skelton, A. N.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Warrender, Sir Victor



Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, Sydney R.
Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.

Question put accordingly,

"That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be

nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection."

The House divided: Ayes, 59. Noes, 157.

Division No. 283.]
AYES.
[12.8 p.m.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bracken, B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butler, R. A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Simms, Major-General J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Eden, Captain Anthony
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lymington, Viscount
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ferguson, Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.



Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph


Atholl, Duchess of
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Ayles, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.


Barr, James
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bellamy, Albert
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hollins, A.
Palin, John Henry


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hopkin, Daniel
Paling, Wilfrid


Benson, G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brothers, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Kinley, J.
Price, M. P.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Romeril, H. G.


Chater, Daniel
Lawrence, Susan
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Church, Major A. G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Day, Harry
Longden, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dukes, C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sexton, James


Edmunds, J. E.
Lowth, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Freeman, Peter
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)


Gould, F.
Marley, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Snell, Harry


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Melville, Sir James
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred
Strauss, G. R.


Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Tillett, Ben
White, H. G.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Lady wood)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Turner, B.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins


Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Section 1 not to come into force until board and lodging provision available.)

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of section one (Provision as to children on canal boats) of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat is available at a cost within the means of the parents of those children.—[Mr. Davies]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
During the Committee stage upstairs we were constantly being confronted with allegations and counter-allegations. The promoters would make a certain statement without adducing any evidence in support of it, with the result that the Committee was left in a state of doubt as to the real facts of the case. In these circumstances, I regret that the House decided not to recommit the Bill, because its recommittal would have enabled the real facts to be put before the Committee in regard to those allegations. One essential point, when dealing with the removal of the children from the barges during school hours, is whether there is proper accommodation available for them. It is a well recognised fact that at the present time there is a great shortage of housing accommodation throughout the country, and this shortage is very acute in the case of houses for the working classes at low rents. The bargemen and the women employed on the barges work for low wages. They are not people of affluence, and they cannot afford to send their children any distance to school. The result of such a proposal would be that a majority of the children, after their removal from the canal boats would have to live in the slums.
The first point we make is that there is a great shortage of houses, and that argument is borne out by the returns of the Ministry of Health, and by the replies given to questions on this subject in this House relating to the lack of accommodation for the housing of the working classes. Those facts furnished us with sufficient evidence to prove that if the barge children were removed from the canal boats there is no available accommodation for them unless you send them into the slums, where they would help to overcrowd still more the already overcrowded areas. We object to that course from the point of view of health and morality, and the laceration and separation of the parents from their children. Having concluded that there was an insufficiency of housing accommodation, we then tried to find out how many children would be affected by the scheme under this Bill, and we found ourselves up against another difficulty, because no reliable statistics were available. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl)—whose zeal for the cause of these children is the admiration of all of us, but whose zeal we sometimes think outruns her discretion—volunteered the information that about 468 children would be affected.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I said 468 families.

Dr. DAVIES: On this point, the evidence which I depend upon is that furnished by the inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who prepared a census of the barge children in this country. We were not quite satisfied that this evidence was as official as it might have been, but we could not dispute the figures. During the Committee stage the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health if she could give the official figure, because the Ministry employed an
inspector under the Canal Boats Act, whose duty it was to issue a report on the condition of those living on canal boats. The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
There is no such figure … We have estimates; we have not registers.
The consequence was that the Committee were left in the position that we did not know what accommodation was available for an unknown number of children because we had no official statistics, and that is the second reason why I regret that the House decided not to recommit this Bill. We were faced with another problem. The number of houses available was an unknown quantity and the number of children was also an unknown quantity. Consequently, we submitted for the approval of the promoters an Amendment to the effect that steps should be taken to ascertain what accommodation was available, and providing that the proposal that the children would have to leave the boats to go to school should not come into effect until it was proved that accommodation was available. To our great astonishment, we found that the promoters of the Bill objected to that. They would not go to the trouble of proving that this accommodation was available. The Noble Lady, speaking in Committee on 13th March, said:
We all recognise that the housing accommodation for the children who have to be boarded out is a very important question.
The promoters of the Bill are with us on that point. The question which then arises is whether suitable accommodation can be found on shore for these children, and we quite agree with the Noble Lady's remark that:
It is a most important question which we are most anxious to get settled.
The Noble Lady acknowledged that there was no definite distinction, and said that she was anxious that these children should be educated and that accommodation should be found for them. As the Noble Lady's views approximated so closely to ours, we thought that perhaps she would accept our Amendment, but her kindness did not extend as far as that. She said:
It seems to me that, if it is once admitted that the children can be boarded out"—
This brings a new phase into the question entirely. It is not a question of finding
houses in which the parents can go and live with the children, but the children are going to be boarded out—
and that it is not necessary for the mother to go on shore and take a house, because it is difficult to find a house"—
I ask the House to note that point. The Noble Lady herself acknowledged in Committee that it is difficult to find a house—
then this Amendment becomes quite unnecessary, because it is not conceivable that in that enormous tract of country, with tens of thousands of houses, it would not be possible to find boarding accommodation for the 1,700 children of school age who have been reported by the local authorities to the Board of Education.
What does that mean? The Noble Lady visualises that, perhaps 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 miles from the canal, there may be a small house that could take in a child to board, and evidently the idea is that we should scour the country—industrial districts and rural districts, even up to the Highlands of Scotland—to find if there is some woman, man, or household willing to board these children within some reasonable distance of a school. That is a tremendous undertaking, and would entail a tremendous separation of children from parents, because, if the child is taken away to a place 40 or 50 or 100 miles from the parents, they can only see their children at holiday time, and not at weekends. Therefore, we say that, if this very difficult position arises, and these children are going to be spread all over the country, it should be proved, as was suggested in our Amendment, that there is accommodation available for them. The Noble Lady said:
We are quite unable to accept this Amendment, because it is obvious that, if it were accepted, parents who are not as interested in the education of the children as I believe the great majority of the canal boat population are, might very well seize on this as a reason for not taking very much trouble to find accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, (Standing Committee B), 13th March, 1930, cols. 99–103.]
There you have the zealous educationist, who says, "Education at all costs! It does not matter whether the accommodation is there, whether it can be provided, whether it is within the means of the parents. Here is a child of school age living on a canal boat. We are going to have that child educated at whatever cost." [Interruption.] It is an extraordinary fact that the zeal and enthusiasm of the promoters of this Bill for the education of children has not extended
to caravan children—the children of gypsies and other people in remote districts. The Noble Lady's enthusiasm and zeal at the present time are concentrated on these children in the canal boats, who, we maintain, are healthy, fine, upstanding children, and any Members of the House who saw the deputation at the beginning of this week will have been astonished, as I was, to see how healthy were the children who were there.
The promoters of the Bill absolutely refused to meet us in any way. They said it should be the duty of the parents to find that accommodation; that it did not matter whether the parents could afford it or not, that all that they were concerned with was that the children should be educated, and whatever handicaps, whatever hardships, whatever punishments, whatever difficulties were inflicted, they had nothing to do with them, but the children must be educated. Those who are opposing the Bill take what is, I would venture to say, a more reasonable view. We are not opposed to the education of the children; I would like the House to understand that definitely; but it seems to us that this method, instead of bringing Mahomet to the mountain, brings the mountain to Mahomet. The promoters of the Bill will not agree that these school children might get their education by an extension of the floating schools to which reference has been made, and in which they are already being educated very satisfactorily at an early stage, but say that the child must be taken to school.
We contend that educationists who are so keenly desirous that these children should be taken from their parents must take into account the economic conditions. We maintain that a bargeman does not get a sufficient wage to enable him to take a second house and keep up a second establishment, even if he could find the house, but, under the Bill as it stands, it does not matter whether the man can afford it or not; he has to send his child ashore, and, if he cannot get a house, he will have to board the child out, at a cost of 7s., 10s. or 15s. a week. It does not matter whether he can afford to do that; he has got to do it; and, if he fails to send his child to school, he can be prosecuted and fined for a first offence, while, if he does it a second time, he can be sent to prison. For the
first time in the whole history of education in this country, the promoters of this Bill, who are so anxious for the health and education of the children of this country, have determined that, on a second offence, it should be possible to send the father of the children to gaol. Why do they not make that proposal for the industrial population? Why do they not propose an alteration of the Education Act so that any man who offends a second time shall go to gaol? Why keep it purely for the canal boat side? It is carrying zeal for education to fanaticism, a word which was used more than once in Committee upstairs, and which was ruled to be perfectly Parliamentary, so I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will accept it here.
It is proposed that, even where parents have no money or not sufficient, and where the housing accommodation is doubtful, the children shall be separated from their parents, perhaps for a whole term. What is the remedy that we proposed? There was only one remedy left, and that was that it should be the duty of the Minister of Health, before this section was brought into effect, to make inquiries and prove that there was accommodation available within the country for all these children, at a price which the parents could afford. That is a very important point. It would be the height of cruelty, it would be the height of Parliamentary interference, for this House to say to a man, "You have got to send your child to school, you have got to pay so much a week, and we do not care whether you can afford it or not. It is nothing to us what you or your wife have to go without in order to pay for your child to be boarded out; it is nothing to us even if you go bankrupt."
That is the attitude of the promoters of the Bill. They say that the child must be educated. We say that that is not fair, and that it should be the duty of the Minister of Health to report to this House, after having made inquiries, and to say definitely that he finds from his inquiries that accommodation is available, that it is within the means of the parents: and then, of course, Clause 1 would automatically come into effect. Suppose, however, that it happens that the Minister of Health reports that accommodation is not available except in slums; suppose that be reports that it is not within the
financial means of the parents; what is the House going to do then? Would the House turn round and support the promoters of the Bill, and say, "Well, accommodation is available. It is beyond what your pocket can afford, but we are not concerned with that; send your child to school or go to gaol"? Does any Member of this honourable House think that any House of Commons would at any time come to such a decision? If that be the position, why cannot the promoters of the Bill accept our proposed new Clause? Why should these people, at terrific strain, be compelled to do this, with all the laceration of all paternal and maternal feelings that it entails, and to do it at their own expense? "But," says the right hon. Gentleman below me, "we will meet you that way. There is a Section in the Education Act which gives to local education authorities power, if they so desire, and if they obtain the approval of the Board of Education, to board out these children." I had the laudable curiosity to inquire from the Board of Education afterwards how often this permission had been applied for and granted for many years, and there were six education authorities in the country who had decided to ask for it.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): The answer was that the applications made and approved by the Board during the last eight years were six, six, nil, one, eleven, eight, seven and six, and that the arrangements usually remain in force for several years without further approval by the Board.

Dr. DAVIES: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was speaking entirely from memory. But the figures are particularly small when you consider the number of education authorities. The point is that, first of all, they have to decide that they will do it, and they have to get the consent of the Board of Education. Is an education authority going to apply to the Board of Education for permission to board these children out at the expense of the rates? They will say, "Why should we bother? They are not our children." They will put it off as long as they can. That gracious concession from the promoters would really mean nothing at all unless the House made it compulsory that this boarding out should be applied. From all points
of view, from the point of view of the health of the children and of the whole structure of the Bill, my Clause is vitally necessary, and I hope that the House will agree with me and will say that these children shall not be sent away unless accommodation is provided.

Earl WINTERTON: I beg to second the Motion.
I am glad to think that the Bill will be killed without my help. I hope the House will pause before they reject this Clause. It would be intolerable if the Bill passed without some such provision. I ask the supporters of the Bill, especially those on this side of the House, to consider what the Clause says. It does not affect the main principle. It does not affect the object so dear to the heart of the Noble Lady beside me that children should be separated from their parents.

Duchess of ATHOLL: No.

Viscountess ASTOR: Monstrous!

Earl WINTERTON: So dear to the hearts of the Noble Ladies besides me and behind me. It is monstrous. It does not affect the principle that children will be separated from their parents from five to 14 years of age while they are at school. All it says is that, before that principle is carried into operation, accommodation shall be found for the children on shore at a price that their parents can afford to pay. I ask supporters of the Bill, and I appeal to my friends on this side of the House, do they think it desirable that the Bill should pass without a provision in it making it obligatory upon the Ministry of Health to ascertain and certify whether or not accommodation is available? How can any reasonable person object to that being put into the Bill? The Noble Lady said on several occasions upstairs, but in rather vague terms, that she believed it would be possible to find accommodation. That opinion goes contrary to all the evidence we have from many sources as to the housing shortage, especially in the kind of industrial areas that are affected by the Bill and for the class of people who come under it.
Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is a point in their favour that these people receive comparatively low wages.
On the contrary, it is a point directly opposed to the views they have put forward because, if they receive low wages, there is all the less reason for compelling them to keep two establishments. If your objection is to the low wages paid in the industry, you should not proceed to deal with it through this Bill but by some means of getting the wages raised. [Interruption.] I am well aware that the hon. Member, like so many of his party, is quite unable to listen to a reasonable argument from the other side without indulging in wholly irrelevant and impertinent observations. Let us consider what the situation will be. Take the district of Brentford, or Birmingham, where many canal boats are. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to deny that there is shortage of accommodation.

Mr. PALIN: There is no shortage of children's homes in either case.

Earl WINTERTON: Is it contemplated that they are to be compelled to send their children to children's homes? That indeed is a Russian notion. I can now see clearly what is the object of some of the promoters, though the two Noble Ladies beside me and behind me attach so much importance in their speeches here and in the country to parents having the care of their own children.

Miss WILKINSON: What is Eton but a children's home?

Earl WINTERTON: If some hon. Members opposite had been at Eton, they would not have such childish views as they possess. [Interruption.] This is not a public meeting and I shall have to call the Speaker's attention if I am subjected to consistent irrelevant and impertinent interruptions. The Bill affects 400 families and something like 1,600 children. I ask the House again, where are these children to go? Is it contemplated, if the Clause is not passed, that they should sleep in the streets or the workhouses, failing other accommodation? Let the supporters of the Bill answer that question? [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member means by "the stately homes of England." There is nothing stately about these barge people's homes, but they are their
homes, and of that the House wants to deprive them. Think what the conditions will be if the Clause is not passed. Think of an intelligent child—and there are many intelligent children among the barges population—found in the street and someone asks, "Where is your home?" The child says, "We are homeless, not because we have not got homes but through an Act of Parliament, which forbids us to live in our own homes and refuses to provide us with alternative accommodation. It seems that the ladies and gentlemen in Parliament are more concerned that we should be educated than that we should have anywhere to live, eat and sleep." It will be monstrous if this Clause is not added to the Bill. I have a further observation to make. It is a sinister fact that in the general strike the only branch of the transport workers who did not come out on strike were the barge population. [Interruption.] I charge hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite that this is an effort to try to punish these people by punishing their children.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not think that I ought to imitate the example of the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in introducing into the discussion so much heat, but I should like to introduce some light. What is the history of this Bill? It is true that the Bill, when originally introduced into the House of Commons, was far more complicated in its character than it is now. In its passage through the Committee it had to undergo a considerable amount of discussion, and, as a consequence of that discussion, considerable Amendment. As a result, the Bill is now for all practical purposes an Education Bill. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Paddington or Marylebone will restrain himself for a moment.

Mr. BRACKEN: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not say anything, and if he had a little politeness he would not have referred to an hon. Member in this way.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Member does not know when he is saying anything.

Sir RENNELL RODD: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone has not made any observations.

Mr. JONES: I was saying that this is an education Bill, and, that being so, I do not understand why the Opposition wish to submit the proposition as to whether this Bill should come under the operation of the Ministry of Health in some way or another. It would be inappropriate and out of order to discuss a Motion which has not been called, and therefore will not be discussed to-day. We have the same element again in the Clause which is now before the House. The Minister of Health is to be vested with powers or to be endowed with certain responsibilities which may very easily jeopardise and nullify the whole of the Bill. How do I make out that proposition? If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Clause they will see that it reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of Section one of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children.
It is important to emphasise the word "all" because the effect of the Clause is that if at any given moment the Minister of Health is not able to certify that provision has been made and is available for all the children—

Dr. DAVIES: If the hon. Gentleman will read further he will find that the provision refers only to school children.

Mr. JONES: I will concede even that point—it does not alter my argument at all—that provision is available for all school children.

Earl WINTERTON: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause. May I call his attention to the words at the top of page 1744 of the Amendment Paper?
All children who will by that section be prevented from residing.
It refers only to the children affected by the Act, and therefore the hon. Gentleman's reference to other children does not arise at all.

Mr. JONES: I hope that in future the Noble Lord will not accuse me of not having read the Clause. I read it with considerable care, and I repeat to the Noble Lord that I am entitled to apply
my interpretation to it just as much as the Noble Lord. The point is, what is the effect of the introduction of the word "all"? I submit that if at any given moment it is possible to show that provision is not available for even one or two school children, then the Minister of Health cannot give a certificate. That is the first point. The other point I want to make is that under this Clause there is no power with which the Minister is endowed either to make or to secure such provision when it is not present. He is not endowed with that power at all.

Earl WINTERTON: We do not deny that.

Mr. JONES: I am merely making the point that as things are now under the law—and this does not correct the law—the Minister, even if he is aware that there is no such provision, cannot provide or secure that such provision is available. The next point is as to the effectiveness of the Measure if it becomes an Act. If this Clause is carried it will depend very largely upon the activity or inactivity of local authorities in the matter of the provision of housing accommodation. I want to put this question to hon. Members opposite. There is not the slightest reason why we should change the responsibility for providing accommodation for children in respect of canal boat people any more than in respect of other people. The primary responsibility for providing accommodation for these children naturally resolves itself into a responsibility of the parents.

Earl WINTERTON: When they are not with them?

Mr. JONES: Will the Noble Lord allow me to proceed?

Earl WINTERTON rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. JONES: I hope that the Noble Lord will extend the same courtesy to me as I extended to him.

Earl WINTERTON: What about your supporters? [Interruption.]

Mr. JONES: I do not think that my point will be controverted. The law, as I understand it, is that even now the responsibility for providing accommodation for the children rests mainly upon the parents of the children.

Mr. SKELTION rose—

Mr. JONES: It will be present to the minds of hon. Members opposite that the sentimental point is that there ought to be some provision available in cases where hardship would be involved upon the parent of the canal boat child. Where there is hardship, I submit to hon. Members opposite, as I did upstairs, provision is at present available in the Education Act, 1921, through the medium of Section 23. Generally speaking, the parent is responsible, but if there is hardship provision is available if Section 23 of the Education Act is applied. The argument has been advanced against us on the ground that because of the shortage of housing accommodation hardship will be involved upon the parents unless an adequate time limit is given. There is point in that; but I world remind the House that that was considered by the Chamberlain Committee and instead of suggesting the time limit that we are offering in the Bill, they suggested that a time limit of 12 months would be adequate. If this Bill passes into law there will be a time limit of at least 18 months, and I suggest that the Committee has been more generous in this matter than the Chamberlain Committee. For these reasons the Government would not feel disposed to accept the Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: I do not like the wording of this Clause, and I do not suppose that anyone can take the wording very seriously, that suitable accommodation should be provided in accordance with the means of the parents. How does the Minister of Health know what are the means of the parents of the children? I am, however, much disappointed with the reply that we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, because, whatever we think about the wording of it, the Clause does cover a point which is a subject of real anxiety to those Members of the House who are here not to talk out the Bill, if they cannot vote it out, but to see that the Bill passes in workable form. Many of us are convinced, I certainly am convinced, that in the interest of education, it is desirable that children of school age, during school hours, should have better opportunities of education than can possibly be given while they are on the barges. The difficulty is that
if for the sake of the children we are going to ask the parents to make a considerable sacrifice, we ought to have more definite assurances than we have had.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education has said that in an ordinary case it would be the responsibility of the parent to provide accommodation, but there never was a case where the parents more clearly stood in need of considerable aid from the authorities than when you are disturbing the ordinary traditional course of their life, as will be done by this Bill. Many canal boat parents have not had educational advantages, many cannot read or write, and they are moving about all the time. How can they get suitable boarding accommodation for their children? That is a matter in which the Ministry of Health—or probably it is more the function of the Board of Education—could come to their assistance. They have inspectors and various kinds of homes and they are in touch with all the charitable homes. If the Minister would give us a definite assurance that they do not mean necessarily to force the parents to leave the barges and that they are willing definitely to take into consideration how the best possible provision can be made for the children, either through voluntary homes or provided homes, or possibly by making special grants, many of us who are hesitating about this Bill would have our doubts removed. We are entitled to more assurance than we have had. The hon. Member did not read Section 23 of the Education Act, 1921. I was not a Member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill and I do not know exactly what are the provisions of Section 23.

Dr. DAVIES: Would the hon. Lady like to have a copy of Section 23?

Miss RATHBONE: Yes.

Dr. DAVIES: Perhaps the hon. Member will read it.

1.0 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: It is a long Section to read out, and I am not going to fall into the trap laid for me by the hon. Member. I am not out to waste time on this Bill. I want it to be as good a Measure as possible. It rests with the Minister to give us an assurance. Those of us who are honest doubters are not
satisfied with the assurances that we have had. We want to know who is going to take it in charge as a definite business of the Ministry to see that proper accommodation is provided for these children. Is the Ministry really in earnest in wanting the parents to provide for their children ashore, without forcing the parents themselves to leave the barges, or do they put forward this proposal as an indirect means of putting pressure upon the parents to leave the barges? If they are in earnest in wanting to help the parents to make provision for their children, what machinery are they going to provide and what financial aid are they going to give?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Debate is becoming rather rough and tumble and, on the whole, it would be as well if one of us from this side spoke against the Bill and in favour of the Clause. My hon. Friends on this side of the House must realise that if the Education Acts in 1872 had involved taking the children away from their homes they would not have had the support of the working classes of this country. My complaint against this Bill is that it embodies in it a proposal to take the children away from their homes.

Mr. SEXTON: Do you call these places homes

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Where the father and mother are living, there is the home.

Mr. SEXTON: You go and live there!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You go and live at St. Helens!

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we should get on better, and certainly in a more dignified manner, if we conducted the Debate a little quieter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The real difficulty is that this Bill involves taking the children away from their homes.

Mr. SEXTON: Homes! Prisons! Convict cells!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: My point is that under the Education Acts—

Mr. SEXTON: I am ashamed of you. I am going out of the House.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is an exposition of—

Mr. PALIN: We are all ashamed of you—albsolutely ashamed of you.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will hon. Members allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The real reason why the Education Acts went through was that the people of this country wanted their children educated, but not that they wanted them taken away from home. I would point out to hon. Members opposite who are supporting this Bill that in the better classes of society children are not sent away from home at the age of six to go to school. There is one thing certain about this Bill and that is that none of the parents want the Bill, and we have no evidence that the child wants the Bill. It is not supported by the working classes. There is almost unanimous opposition from the parents of the children affected by this Bill. It may be that the education of these children at the present time is bad, but at any rate they prefer it. Exactly similar arguments could be advanced and have been used in the past in favour of the compulsory education of the children of gipsies. The education of the gipsies is pretty bad.
We are not justified in putting the interests of society before the interests of the people for whom we are legislating. There is a passion nowadays for judging everything by one test; is it in the interests of the community that it should be done? This, no doubt, is in the interests of the community; but is that to be the test, and the only test, of legislation? Slavery has been defended as being in the interests of the community; uniformity in religion has been defended as in the interests of the community. Every reform has been opposed because it was contrary to the interests of society. Is that to be the test of the excellency or otherwise of any piece of legislation? In case of war you are bound to make sacrifices for the good of the community, or what is thought to be the good of the community, but in peace times ought we not to look at any legislative proposal which is brought forward as to whether it is enforcing the will of the majority upon the minority or whether it is at the desire of the minority that the legislation should be passed?
Because nine people out of ten think that a barge child ought to have a board school education it does not make it right. The fact that a majority is in favour of any measure does not make it right. What makes it right is whether it is just, and it does not seem just to force people who live in barges to send their children to school when it involves separating them from their parents. That is asking from this section of the population more than we should ask from ourselves or from any other section of the working-class population. However desirable it may be that everybody in this world should be able to read and write, we have no right in this House of Commons, if one man out of the 40 objects, to force it upon him. We have provided compulsory education in the ordinary course of events, and, although something may be said against that, we have done so because we consider that the interests of the majority outweigh the interests of the objectors. We provided compulsory military service because we considered that the interests of the majority outweighed the objections of the conscientious objector, but I do not see why we should go out of our way to do it here where the case is not nearly so strong.
I ask the House to say that the urgency in the case of these 400 families is not sufficient to overrule the principle that we should give liberty first and await the results of providing opportunity for their education before making it compulsory. It is a mistake to pass laws which are not carried out. Obviously, if we pass this Bill into law it will be very difficult to enforce it. The people of this country would not stand for sending these barge people to prison for not sending their children to school. To pass laws which are not carried out brings down the respect of people for the law. It also has the effect of making them think that if they can break one law they can break another.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The House has just listened to an admirable example of what is known to all artists as a specimen of the earlier manner. The speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is the type of speech to which I used to listen many years ago. It was a Second Reading speech, however inter-
esting it may have been. During the debates on education during the last century it was said that the greater the need for education the greater objection there was to it. The point is this: what hardship, if any, and I agree there must be some, is there on the parents of these children if they are unable to find accommodation for them? Let me refer to what took place in the Committee upstairs. The matter was fully debated and some hon. Members at the conclusion of the discussion, in view of the Amendment which was made to the Bill, were good enough to say that they had been met handsomely. After all, it is a provision of real value. Let me tell the House in a few sentences what Section 23 of the Act of 1921 does. It provides that in the case of young children where owing to remoteness of their homes or the condition under which the children are living, or any other exceptional circumstances affecting the children, the local authority may—it is for them to exercise their discretion in the matter—with the approval of the Board of Education, make arrangements for their education, including the provision of board and lodging.
The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education shows that wherever a case has been made out it has been fully met. What reason is there for assuming that the local education authority or the Board of Education are going to be more hard-hearted in the future than they have been in the past? There is no doubt that they will give swift and sympathetic consideration to any case that is obviously a hard case. The authority
may make such arrangements, either of a permanent or temporary character, and including the provision of board and lodging, as they think best suited for the purpose of enabling those children to receive the benefit of efficient elementary education.
That is sufficient answer to the hon. Lady who intervened in the Debate a little while ago. Her point has been substantially and fully met. I beg the House to come to an immediate conclusion.

Mr. SKELTON: What action does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that the Board of Education will take under that Section—the provision of homes or of education?

Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. Member has not listened or I have not been clear. Here is the case of children who are to be compelled by the Bill to go to school. If the parents say, "We have not any homes or anywhere else where we can send them," that is at once reported to the local education authority by the school attendance officer. The local education authority confers with the Board of Education, who are on the lookout for this kind of thing. Then the local education authority is empowered by the Board of Education to do what is necessary. It "may make such arrangements"—

HON. MEMBERS: "May."

Sir D. MACLEAN: Hon. Members must assume that these local authorities will act as they ought to act and as they have acted in the past. Is it likely that the local education authorities will suddenly change into irate, suspicious, unjust and selfish bodies? Not at all.

Miss RATHBONE: How often has that Section been put into effect?

Captain GUNSTON: Clause 3, Subsection (1) of the Bill says that a child who has no home other than a canal boat:
shall, until he commences to attend a school within the area of another local education authority, be deemed to be resident in the area of that local education authority whose area includes the place to which the boat is registered as belonging.
If the right hon. Gentleman will refresh his memory, he will find that these boats are registered where they are built. The Clause may force these children to go to some area a long distance away from the place where the canal boat is. We therefore cannot place much reliance on the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I want to deal with the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. He said that under the present law it is the duty of parents to provide accommodation. I deny that. I say that it is the duty of parents to provide a home. What is the hon. Gentleman proposing to do in this Bill? He is proposing to say to parents: "You have to abide by your present obligation to provide a home and you have to provide alternative accommodation as well," and he is demanding that of people who have not the means of
doing it. The new Clause will show what the promoters of the Bill really intend. The Parliamentary Secretary said to-day that this was an Education Bill. When it was introduced, we were told that it was introduced for health and other reasons. Those arguments have been shattered in Committee. We all admit the advantages of education, but it is criminal to say to a person, "You must be educated, but we pay no regard to the conditions of health and home life."
Once more we ask the promoters of the Bill whether they do not think that they ought to try to meet the very reasonable objections of the people on the canal boats? The hon. Lady who represents the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) showed sympathy and a realisation of the subject which we have not found in the Noble Lady (Duchess of Atholl). She suggested that though the wording of the new Clause may not be all that we would like, the promoters of the Bill should accept the principle of it. I appeal to the promoters to accept the principle, so that we may achieve the object at which we all aim, which is to provide education but not to deprive the children of the home influence which we all value so much.

Mr. FERGUS GRAHAM: I support the new Clause. This grandmotherly Bill is conceived in a narrow refusal to recognise that people are divided into sections, some of whom are rural, some urban, some sedentary and some active in their tastes; and some Tory and some Socialist. These divisions are being destroyed by education on the present lines. Everyone is being drawn towards the same rut, and everyone is in danger of becoming a member of the vast black-coated brigade which—

Duchess of ATHOLL: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment which is before the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I was not engaged for the moment in following the speech of the hon. Member, and I must wait to see how it is related to the new Clause.

Mr. GRAHAM: This is yet another industry which will be in danger if children on these canal boats are withdrawn from their parents. We have lost
numerous trades and industries in this country. We have lost blacksmiths to a great extent; we have lost thatchers; we have lost skilled manual tradesmen—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have difficulty in following the hon. Member in relation to the new Clause, the heading of which is:
Section one not to come into force until board and lodging provision available.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this proposed new Clause would place a very heavy weight upon this Bill, and it was from that point of view, as well as from the point of view that it is essential to watch very carefully the hardships which this Bill may cause, that I thought I might be in order in indicating some of its general effects.

Mr. SEXTON: I should not have intervened in this Debate at all had it not been for the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I have sat here all the morning listening with what patience I could command to the enemies of this Bill on the opposite side of the House, but only a speech such as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman coming from this side of the House, which would cause me to take part in this discussion. We have had an unholy combination in connection with this Bill. We have had the representatives of "the stately homes of England" and the representatives of the law and then we have had the introduction of the Church, but I never expected an intervention such as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. He talks about the parents making "homes" for the children, and about the health of the children. May I quote a report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Manchester district dated 28th January, 1925. I presume it will be in order as the new Clause I understand raises the question of a report on the health of the children on canal boats.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member referring to a different new Clause?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He may be, but I must first hear what he has to say before I can decide.

Mr. SEXTON: I understand that what we are now dealing with is the question of a report on the health of these children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, the hon. Member seems to be referring to another new Clause. The proposal now before us relates to the provision of board and lodging for the children.

Mr. SEXTON: In that case, I can save the House and myself a certain amount of time by not making the quotation which I had intended to make. I leave that matter there and return to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. I was astounded when I heard him speak in opposition to this Bill, and it occurred to me that it was a dirty bird which fouled its own nest. The only excuse that I can find for him is that he is an invader, a kind of political cuckoo on this particular question. He quoted poetry. May I also conclude with a poetic quotation. In the words of a poet who was at one time a Member of this House:
Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe;
Bold I can meet—perhaps may turn his blow;
But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
Save, save, oh! save me from the candid friend.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The last speaker gave us a very interesting insight into the psychology of many Members on the opposite side of the House. Of course, I know the feeling which exists among the comrades, and what goes on in trade union lodges. No independence is tolerated there. Things are cut and dried, and the man who attempts to oppose the mandarins is very liable to leave with an enlarged auricular organ. He does not get a chance to differ from them, but in the atmosphere of this House there is still some freedom left, although, if some hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way, there would not be even that. Any man may speak and vote as he chooses on a Bill of this kind which is, after all, a non-party Bill, and is not
subject to the Government whips. When a Bill deserves the fullest condemnation, why should it not receive that condemnation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)? That right hon. Gentleman bears an honoured name and his forbears for centuries made great sacrifices for this country and its freedom, and why should he not express himself in favour of liberty? Is it to be written of the party opposite: "Abandon liberty all ye who enter here"? is it to be said that if a man goes into the Labour party he is to say nothing which differs from the desire of many Members of that party to put everybody into strait jackets? I quite agree that as the Government Front Bench is at present constituted, a large number of mental strait jackets are obviously needed there. But why should a member be attacked simply because he has expressed himself in favour of liberty?
What does this new Clause propose? It says in effect, "Here you have people engaged in an honourable occupation, and you are about to interfere with them in this way, and you must make suitable arrangements for these children." I regret very much that I was not present when these ladies and gentlemen of the barges came here to meet Members of the House of Commons, but I believe that a couple of the Members of the party opposite then behaved so badly, when urging their views, that the bargees were shocked. They had never seen such conduct even on the barges. These people thought that the House of Commons was a place where fair play and freedom of discussion obtained, but, apparently, the proceedings of some hon. Members on that occasion shocked those honoured citizens who were seeking protection for their homes and their children. There was a Mrs. Tolley there, I believe, a lady of a physique like that of the eminent golfer, who defied the supporters of this Bill. I do not know exactly how long it is since canals were first constructed, but at any rate for a couple of centuries these people have been carrying on their occupation in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Longer."] I believe that living on the water first began in the time of Noah, and if this Bill had
been an Act then, I suppose he would not have been able to take his family on board the Ark, but would have had to leave them on the slopes of Mount Ararat, where there would have been no alternative accommodation for them. We hear talk about these homes not being sanitary, but the greatest authority on sanitation in the world, the statesman who framed a code of health for the guidance of the Chosen People was, himself, brought up on the water, and was found among the bulrushes.
These people, as I said, have been carrying on this occupation for many years. You are going to change their mode of life. You are going to take these children away from their parents, just at the time when the parents would have the best chance of moulding the character of the children. If I had a child, the last thing I would wish would be to see him under the care of, say, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I would rather that he should be illiterate than that he should be educated under such auspices. I have seen too many teachers, and I thank God that I never had to experience the stupefying effect of any school at this early stage of life. I think these schools are bad places in which to put little children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is now making a Second Reading speech. I must ask him to confine himself to the Question before the House.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am pointing out that if you are going to take children away from their parents at this most critical period of their lives, and subject them to the stupefying influence of a prison—for that is what a school is to a child between five and ten—you must make the arrangements proposed in the New Clause. I hold that no child should go near a school until he is 10 years of age. They may be sent to school earlier in the towns in order to get them off the streets, but all that they learn between five years and ten years could be learned in six months after they have reached the age of 10 years.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The proposed New Clause is simply a modification
of what will be Section I of the Act, and the hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the modification.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The proposal is:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act the provisions of Section one (Provision as to children on canal boats) of this Act shall not come into force unless and until the Minister of Health has presented a certificate to Parliament that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat is available at a cost within the means of the parents of those children.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is what the hon. and learned Member ought to apply himself to.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think I am applying myself to that point. If you are going to have these children forcibly excluded and evicted from their homes, more cruelly than the crofters were evicted from the Highlands—because there at least the parents and the families were kept together—if you are going to have children of tender years put into the hands of strangers, surely the least you can do is to see that careful inquiry is made and suitable arrangements provided for them elsewhere. If this outrageous interference with family life is to be permitted, surely we ought to say that the Minister of Health shall certify to the guilty parties, that is to Parliament in this case, that proper provision has been made for these children. I am not prepared to leave the matter to the local education authorities. They will deal with it in a skimpy fashion, and will be inclined to try to save the rates. The House ought to do as the right hon. and gallant Member said we ought to do. We are introducing a new principle. We are taking children compulsorily away from their parents, and the least we can do is to make sure that the minimum amount of hardship and evil is perpetrated. I think the State exists for the benefit of the individual, but hon. Members opposite think the individual exists for the benefit of the State. If you are going to make the fundamental change proposed in this Bill, to sacrifice these people and break up domestic life in this way, it is up to those who are responsible for doing it to see that the fullest possible provision is made for them.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not wish to deny that the Clause raises a question that is of importance, but I want to try to help the House to realise the practical step that has been taken in the Bill to meet the difficulty, and I also want the House to keep this question in its true proportions. I should like to say how very surprised I have been to find hon. Friends behind me apparently not ready to support the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in his admirable statement as to the duty that rest on parents to find accommodation for their families. I should have thought that that was a responsibility which all Members would have accepted as being fundamental, but it has been left to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to state that principle, and it has not received as much endorsement by hon. Friends on the benches behind me as I am sure, on reflection, they would wish to give it. Undoubtedly, it seems to me, the Clause suggests a system under which a canal boat man could sit still and wait for a local education authority to find suitable accommodation.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—It would undoubtedly tend to diminish initiative, and that is the last thing that any Member of the Unionist party should wish to diminish.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Has the Noble Lady not mistaken the meaning of the Clause? It does not propose that the Minister of Health shall mike these arrangements. They are to be left to the parents, and all that the Amendment proposes is that the Minister of Health shall give a certificate that the accommodation exists and can be found.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Yes, but I submit that if any parent was not very anxious for his children to receive education—and we know that there is a certain number of that kind—it gives such a parent an opportunity to sit still and say, "Oh! well, I will wait and see what accommodation they find for me, and I can always say the accommodation is not there." It gives an opportunity to a lazy or a careless parent to get out of his responsibilities, whereas—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the Noble Lady please address the Chair?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am in the unfortun-
ate position that those whom I have to convince are on the benches behind me, and not, as is usually the case, on the benches opposite. My second point is that I want the House to understand clearly that the great majority of the children of canal boat men in this country already are living on shore, with or without their mothers, and we have information, which has been very carefully compiled over a period of ten years, to show that of the canal boat men who still have their children on boats, the great majority have houses on shore, which they do not always use. The particulars that have been given to me by this investigator show a list of all the boats in the country that have been visited in the last ten years by a social worker who has worked, not just on a single canal or part of a canal, but over the whole of the canal system of England and Wales. I have here a list giving the names of all the boats visited in the course of ten years on which children of school age have been found, those who have houses, and those who have not. Those who have not houses number 468, and those who have houses number 1,730. What I have said shows that the majority of the canal boat people in the first instance have realised that their children are not going to get a fair chance in life unless they are educated elsewhere than on the boats.

Dr. DAVIES: Will the Noble Lady give the name of the party of whom she is speaking?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Certainly; the authority is the inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who for the past 10 years has been entrusted with the express duty of watching over the interests of these children. This gentleman is in a unique position in regard to this question, because he is the only person in the country, I believe, who has had the duty of investigating conditions among the whole of the canal boat children in this country. A social worker who came on the deputation representing the canal boat people on Monday last had worked on one canal only, and that deputation dealt largely with that part of the area in which that particular worker lived, but this man has got information covering the whole of the canal boat popula-
tion, and that has not been given by anybody else. I have here a complete list of the names of the boats on which families have been found in the last 10 years, and I have seen the fuller list from which it has been compiled, showing the name of every master of every boat, the number and the age of the children, and which of the families have houses and which have not.
Therefore, this problem only refers to a minority of the families who still keep their children on the boats, and houses would not have to be found just in one place or in two or three places. I have a list of 28 different places, not all industrial centres, in which these canal boat people might suitably choose to look out for houses, because they are places at the terminals of the boat traffic. Therefore, there is no question of 468 families having to be dumped down in Brantford or Birmingham, as has been suggested. These families could very suitably look for accommodation over a great part of the centre of England, from Gloucester in the south-west to London in the south-east, and from Liverpool in the north-west to Hull in the north-east.
I would say further that in the case where the mother wishes to remain on the boat, it has been the custom among some canal boat people to board out their children. I quite agree in regretting very much that it should ever be necessary for a child so young as five or six years of age to have to leave its parents, even for a few days in the week, but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) that it is a custom that is by no means uncommon among his and my constituents. I know several families who live so far from school that when their children arrive at school age they recognise that it is inevitable that they should be boarded out with somebody in a village; or in the winter the mother will live in a house in a village in order to look after her children's education. It is unfortunately the only means by which it is possible to educate the children in some of the most distant parts of the Highlands of Scotland.
There is another point. Has it occurred to any hon. Member who opposes this Bill to think what a sword of Damocles hangs over every canal boat man who has no house, in the event of his losing his
employment? If a man falls out with his employer, or loses his health, or is unable to continue his work for any other reason, think of his fate. It means not only loss of his employment, but loss of his home, and that is the fate which descended on no fewer than 129 families a few years ago, when a canal boat company dismissed all its workers. There had been some trouble with the men, and the result was that they were all dismissed. Some 129 families were affected, of whom 72 were without homes.
Then there is another point, to which attention has been called more than once by the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who has told us of the probability that before long proposals may be made for widening some of the canals, and that if they are widened, it will mean the introduction of quite a different type of boat, for which the child labour, which, it is admitted, is being used—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was denied by the representative of the canal boat companies in 1921, but in the circular sent out by these companies to hon. Members before the Second Reading of this Bill it was admitted. But whether or not it is admitted by the canal companies, or whatever we think of the question of work by children, there is the possibility of widening the canals and the introduction of a bigger boat for which child labour would not be suitable; and that will mean the turning off of families wholesale from the canals. Imagine what the position will be. There will be the difficulty of finding houses from a certain date, and the throwing on to the labour market of a large number of young people who have received very little education. It seems to me that that particular fact that the widening of the canals which has been proposed—

Sir H. NIELD: What I said was that in regard to the particular canal from the Thames to Birmingham, an application was before the Lord Privy Seal to advance the money to enable the widening to be carried out for 100 ton barges.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. and learned Gentleman is only substantiating what I said.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: There is no provision in this Bill which is going to pro-
vide a single canal boat family with a house of its own.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I dealt with that at the beginning of my speech, when I said that hon. Members must admit that it is a responsibility of a parent to endeavour to find accommodation for his children. The promoters of the Bill, with the warm support of its opponents, have met that difficulty by the insertion of a Clause which, for the first time, brings canal boat children under Clause 23 of the Education Act, a Clause which enables local authorities to help with the provision of board and lodging where children's homes are at a distance from the boat, or where there are other exceptional circumstances. Hundreds of canal boat families have been boarding out their children without any such assistance. They have not had a penny of assistance from the authorities. Therefore, this Bill will definitely make a real contribution towards the expenses to which parents are necessarily put in the event of having to board out their children. I hope that I have said enough to show that what the Bill seeks to do is simply to give a minority of the canal boat children the benefit of residence on shore, which can alone ensure regular attendance at school, and which is already being enjoyed by the great majority of the boat children of this country; and that the Bill supplies a real and definite help towards making that residence on shore possible, even in the case of children of men whose wages are not very big.

2.0 p.m.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: I was glad to hear an assurance from my Noble Friend that she is worried, and almost distressed, at the idea of children of five or six years of age being taken away from their parents. I have been rather surprised at the attitude which she has taken in some parts of this Bill, and I could not believe that her feelings would be otherwise, yet, in spite of her distress at the breaking up of family life, she considers that the education of the child at that age is so important that the separation should take place. I can only think that in this particular case she, departing from the usual characteristic attributed to her sex, is being governed by her head rather than by her heart. I regret that the elemental appeal to the heart of a woman is being
subordinated to the head on this particular occasion. I intervene in the Debate because of the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who strongly objected to the remarks of my Noble Friend who preceded him. He said that he was going to give us some light, and I listened attentively to his speech, but all that he dealt with was his objection to the provision of this Clause that the Minister of Health should certify.
that suitable provision for board and lodging for all children who will by that section be prevented from residing on a canal boat ii available.
We should not condemn children to be deprived of the homes which they have enjoyed so far, and to have their homes broken up unless some authority has gone into the matter and made full inquiries, and can assure the people of this country that, when they are so turned out by Act of Parliament, there is suitable accommodation available for them within the means of the parents. It seems the most reasonable request that, when you are going to break up homes, you should be able to assure the country that suitable accommodation within the means of the parents is available.
With regard to Section 3, it does not seem to be realised that it is an ordinary thing for barges to be registered in most cases at the places where they were built. Therefore, people working on barges in the London district, may be working on barges that were built and registered hundreds of miles away. It would be very little consolation to turn round to the parent who cannot see his way to provide a second home, or whose wife does not wish to leave the barge to start another home on shore, and tell him that if he applies to the authority where his barge is registered, some hundreds of miles away, they may make suitable provision for board, lodging and education. It is throwing rather a heavy burden on a man, to whom, it cannot be denied, you are doing an injury. Whatever you are doing to the child, you are without doubt doing an injury to the parents. You are placing this obligation on them to make arrangements for their children, either by providing another home on shore and doing away with their home on board the canal boat, or by making suitable provision for the children either directly or through the local authority. You are throwing a considerable obliga-
tion upon the parents, and heavy penalties if they do not carry out the obligation. [Interruption.] What they want, and what every Englishman has a right to demand, is justice, and I want to see that justice is done to these people.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: And a home fit to be called a home.

Commodore KING: The hon. Member talks about homes that are fit to be called homes. That is what we want to ensure under this Clause. [interruption.] I know what the hon. Member is referring to. He is referring to what is their home now, the cabin of a canal boat.

Mr. SEXTON: A clog kennel!

Commodore KING: The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) always gets rather excited over these matters. He has known something of sea life—

Mr. SEXTON: And canal life, too.

Commodore KING: Then he knows perfectly well, as I do from having had five years' experience in a sailing ship, that cabin accommodation in any craft is very cramped. On board ship, where space is very valuable, you do not expect to get spacious accommodation; but it is not the size of a home which makes for comfort or for home life. Size is only a side matter. What makes the home and the family life is the way in which a home, whatever its size, is kept.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: What about public schools?

Commodore KING: I will deal with that point in a moment. Although hon. Members may criticise the size of the homes on these canal barges, I think very few who have ever seen them will say they have found an ill-kept or dirty home on a canal boat.

Mr. FRANK SMITH: Will you quote the dimensions?

Commodore KING: The hon. Member knows the dimensions. I am not disputing the size, but I say the size is not everything. Those cabins are the centre of the home life of the family, and I maintain that it is home life that is at the foundation of the British character. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member disputes that, we are even farther apart than I should have imagined.

Mr. SMITH: I do so.

Commodore KING: I am trying to speak from the humanitarian point of view and from the family point of view, and in doing so I am also speaking from the national point of view.

Mr. SMITH: The Tory point of view.

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member makes any relevant interjection I will try to deal with it, but I cannot hear mutterings sufficiently well to reply to them. I wish to point out the difficulty of throwing on barge people the responsibility of either providing another home, making provision for the boarding of their children, or applying to a local authority, which may be hundreds of miles away, to make the necessary provision. If they do not make provision they will be subject to a heavy penalty.

Mr. SEXTON: The State makes children live in industrial schools.

Commodore KING: I should hardly have thought those children would have been compared with the children with whom we are dealing at the present time. The children of barge dwellers are as fine a type as you could wish for, and I do not think the comparison with industrial school children will be welcomed.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: Oh, he did not do that? [Interruption.]

Commodore KING: He referred to industrial schools. It is extremely hard to go on. One meets with all sorts of interjections, and when a reply is made to them then a complaint is made that I am not dealing with the subject before us. Hon. Members opposite are continually interjecting and trying to make it impossible for anyone on this side to engage in a logical discussion, but they resent any reply which is given to them. I wish to say a few words about this Clause because the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl) dealt with it as though it were a spoon-feeding proposal. She had a wrong impression of this Clause. I would stress the point that the Clause merely asks that the Minister of Health should satisfy himself that accommodation is available within the means of the parents.
That is not spoon-feeding, it is only assuring the country, at a time when we are putting this new responsibility on barge dwellers, that accommodation elsewhere is available for their children. It will be for the parents to find the accommodation. But even if we did say that the parents should be allowed to sit down and wait until suitable alternative accommodation had been provided, would that be putting them in any different position from that of the people whom we have relieved of the necessity of showing that they are genuinely seeking work? Those people are allowed to sit down and wait until work is provided for them, and I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have agreed that these barge dwellers with whose life we are now proposing to interfere should have the right to sit down in their barges and say, "We are not going to make any move until you come along and tell us that other suitable accommodation exists." That would be quite a logical thing in view of the general trend of Socialist legislation.
As I represent what I may call the home port of barges in London, that is, Paddington Basin, I know a good deal about the problems which exist there. Further, in addition to a political connection with South Paddington extending over 10 years I have had some 20 years' experience of social work in the slum areas all round the canal district. I know something of the homes in which the poorer inhabitants of Paddington have to live, and whatever may be said about the size of barge cabins, I would sooner live with my family in a properly kept barge cabin than in some of the dreadful slums in which people have to exist in some parts of Paddington. If that is the kind of accommodation to which these barge families will have to go we shall be doing them a very grave injury indeed. A cabin may be restricted, but the greater part of the time the children are on the boat they are in the open air. They are getting the free, fresh air practically all the time; though they may sleep in a restricted air space, the effect is more than counterbalanced by the fresh air they get during the day.
Interjections have been thrown across the floor regarding Eton and the way in which the children of the rich are taken
away from their homes and sent to school. There is, however, this distinction between that case and the compulsion which marks every single Measure of the Socialist Government. We do not mind such things happening when they are done voluntarily; but there is all the difference when you interfere with the liberties of the people and say to them: "You must do this, that or the other." There is no compulsion on the more wealthy section of the community to send their children to school. They can take advantage of the ordinary facilities of school life, which are quite close to them; and in any case there is no question of the children of wealthy parents being separated from them compulsorily at the age of five, six, seven or eight. That voluntary separation will not take place before the age of eight or nine; therefore the earlier years, the more receptive years of a child's life, are spent with the parents in the home. The doubtful advantages which a child may gain by being brought up at school and away from its parents cannot possibly outweigh the great loss which it suffers through missing the influence of home and family life in its early years. There is all the difference in the world between doing this voluntarily, and compulsorily taking away the children from their parents at a very early age. I maintain that it is not right to inflict such an injury on the life of the barge dwellers unless you at least satisfy this House and the country that there is accommodation available for the children who are going to be taken from their homes, and that accommodation is available at a cost which is within the means of the parents of those children.

Commander SOUTHBY: I am at a loss to understand why hon. Members opposite should be so antagonistic to this proposal. Surely if there is a good example of legislation directed against a particular class of the community it is the legislation contained in this Bill. We oppose this Bill because we believe that it is a wanton interference with the liberty of a deserving body of people, and we are trying to protect those who are likely to be injured by the operation of a Measure of this kind. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) said it was the duty of the parents to provide accommodation,
but in this instance they have already done so, and therefore I cannot see why the taunt should be levelled at those parents that the accommodation which they have provided is bad and abominable, when, in point of fact, anyone who has visited a barge knows that these people are proud of their homes, and that the children are well cared for and healthy.
We object to this Bill because its provisions are directed against one particular section of the population. In no other instance do we say in our legislation that parents who have already provided accommodation for their families shall be forced to provide alternative accommodation. If you are going to make an exception in the case of the barge population and say that, in the interests of education and the development of home life, it is necessary to inflict a hardship on the parents by taking their children away from them, surely you are not entitled to inflict a still further hardship by compelling the parents to find alternative accommodation, or else be subjected to a fine or imprisonment for not sending their children to school. If the education authorities are going to force these children out of the barges, they should at least provide them with suitable accommodation within the means of the man whose child is taken away.
It is all very well to say that you are dealing only with a small number of people, and that it does not matter very much. This House stands for the protection of minorities, and it is because I believe that it is a gross infringement of the liberties of the minority who live in barges that I am supporting this Clause, which I believe will soften the blow which must come to the parents when the children are taken away. The Noble Lady said that these people would not have their children educated unless some such provision as is contained in this Bill is made for them. No evidence whatever has been produced either here or in Committee in support of the accusation that the barge dwellers do not educate their children, or that they are not just as keen about the education of their children as any other section of the community.

Mr. DUNCAN: The children do not get the education.

Commander SOUTHBY: I do not think the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) would like to go down to the Paddington basin and tell the bargemen there that their children are illiterate and uneducated. If he did I know where he would find himself. [Interruption.] The barge population is entitled to the protection of this House. I heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), state that it was a new thing to suggest that you had to consider the feelings of a small minority in a matter of this kind. If that is so, a change has indeed now come over the functions of this House. The Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross, has again alluded to child labour, but you cannot have it both ways. Either this Bill is brought forward on educational grounds or on the grounds of the improper conditions under which the children live. It would be out of order for me to refer to the conditions of life in barges, but if you are going to contend that this Bill is in the interest of education, and if you are going to force these children to receive education, it is your duty to do it in such a way that it will not inflict hardship either on the children or on their parents.
The hon. Lady, the Member for the Combined Universities (Miss Rathbone), and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), put the position very clearly when they said that it was the duty of hon. Members to do the best they could for the children in the barges and for their parents. Nobody who is not an educational fanatic—I do not use that word with any unpleasant meaning—could possibly deny the force of the points which were made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, because what he stated was the real essence of the whole thing. You can buy education too dearly. When one hon. Member said that this is a case of education at all costs, hon. Members opposite cheered. But why? Why should you not say that while you agree that these children should get the best possible education, you are not in favour of destroying what, after all, is more important, that is home life and home influence. If in addition to this you are going to penalise the parents by asking
them to do what you know is impossible, and you know very well that there is no suitable accommodation for the children, then you are inflicting upon them a still greater hardship. You are going to say to the parent, "Your child has got to go to school." And when the parent replies, "Where am I to send my children to live?" you wash your hands like Pilate and say, "That is no business of ours, but if you do not send your children to school, you will suffer penalties which are inflicted upon no other section of the community for such an offence."
By this Bill you are singling out bargemen for penalties which are vindictive in their character. You are asking these bargemen to do an impossible task and you say to them, "Although we know that it is impossible for you to find the necessary accommodation for your children, if you do not do so, we will send you to prison, although we do not act in this way in regard to any other section of the community." Would any hon. Member opposite who sits for an industrial constituency dare to go to his constituency and say to any of his supporters, "If your children do not go to school, I will send you to prison, with or without hard labour"? I venture to say that not a single Member opposite would dare to do so. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member would do it, I take off my hat to him for his courage. These people are few in number, and you say to them, "Because you are only barge dwellers, we make wild assertions that your life is abominable and that you are cruel to your children"? but not a single one of those assertions has ever been substantiated. The Noble Lady, in Committee, made reference to the number of cases reported by the inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, but, when she was asked how many prosecutions or convictions there had been, she could not say. If these accusations are true, they will be proved true by prosecutions and convictions, and if you cannot show the prosecutions or convictions, I say that you have no right to make a wild assertion that the barge population are cruel to their children.
All that we ask is that the promoters of the Bill should accept this safeguard,
which is in the interests of the parents, and I really cannot believe, unless they are actuated by the same ideas that actuated the Inquisitors in the Middle Ages, when men were sent to the stake for someone else's opinions, that they are going to punish these people because they desire that these children should be educated in their way and in no other way. If that be the view of the promoters of the Bill, by all means let them go ahead and drive the Bill through the House of Commons; but if they believe in a little personal liberty, if they believe a little in the sanctity of the home and in the right of a man to say what he wants done and to have it done in his own way, without putting an impossible task upon a hard-working and industrious population—if they are sincere, they will accept this Clause, which does not

seek to prevent the children being educated, as some hon. Members suggest, but only to make it possible for the parents to have their children educated, and to put the onus of making it possible upon the proper people to shoulder that burden, a burden which has never been sought by the barge population, that is to say, upon the authorities who order the children to leave their homes and go out to school in this way.

Sir D. MACLEAN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 63.

Division No. 284.]
AYES.
[2.27 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gossling, A. G.
March, S.


Alpass, J. H.
Gould, F.
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Gray, Milner
Marley, J.


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maxton, James


Astor, Viscountess
Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred


Atholl, Duchess of
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Barr, James
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Batey, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bellamy, Albert
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Benson, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hayes, John Henry
Oldfield, J. R.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Paling, Wilfrid


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmar, E. T.


Brothers, M.
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Tubervill, Edith


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Chater, Daniel
Kennedy, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Church, Major A. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Cove, William G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cowan, D. M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Dukes, C.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, James


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Vaughan, D. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Walker, J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sorensen, R.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Strauss, G. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sutton, J. E.
West, F. R.



Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Westwood, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Mr. Ede and Brigadier General Makins.


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Tillett, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



NOES.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Simms, Major-General J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Butler, R. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Colman, N. C. D.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Liewellin, Major J. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, viscount
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macquisten, F. A.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ford, Sir P. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mulrhead, A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peake, Capt. Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 179.

Division No. 285.]
AYES.
[2.36 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rathbone, Eleanor


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Simms, Major-General J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Butler, R. A.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Skelton, A. N.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wells, Sydney R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Mr. Beaumont and Commander Southby.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ramsbotham, H.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brothers, M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Barr, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Ammon, Charles George
Bellamy, Albert
Buchanan, G.


Arnott, John
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Burgess, F. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Benson, G.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Astor, Viscountess
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Ayles, Walter
Birkett, W. Norman
Charleton, H. C.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Chater, Daniel


Church, Major A. G.
Kinley, J.
Romeril, H. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dallas, George
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dukes, C.
Leach, W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scurr, John


Edmunds, J. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sexton, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Foot, Isaac
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Freeman, Peter
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gould, F.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Snell, Harry


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George
Sorensen, R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph
Thurtle, Ernest


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tillett, Ben


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hastings, Dr. Somervill.
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walker, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watkins, F. C.


Hayes, John Henry
Oldfield, J. R.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palin, John Henry
Westwood, Joseph


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kennedy, Thomas
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.

CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to children on canal boats.)

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out the word "thirty-two" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."
It was thought that the time stated in the Bill was wholly insufficient. We asked for a delay of five years, and pointed out that three years was an absolutely essential minimum period to enable us to make such arrangements as, at any rate, would enable the elimination of hardships. [Interruption.] Even my hon. Friends declare that they cannot hear what is being said owing to interruptions; therefore I beg to repeat what, I said in Committee, namely, that this term should be increased by five years, which I afterwards agreed, by way of attempted compromise, should be three
years, as the minimum period during which the threatened hardships could be minimised. In that connection I assured the Committee, as I assured this House on the Second Reading of the Bill, of the serious proposals of the Grand Junction Canal Company to widen the canal from London to Birmingham and from Coventry to other centres so that it would accommodate 100-ton barges, and that that in itself would cause a total alteration in the class of traffic, and that the narrow barge would no longer be used, when for the purposes of commerce 100-ton barges were to be substituted. This would at once create a different state of affairs and enable the living-in on the barges to be done away with and certainly do away with the presence of women and children. Barges which at present have women and children on board are only of a 30-ton capacity. It
is impossible on the earnings of a 30-ton barge to pay the wages, which would necessarily require to be paid, if a mate had to be substituted and paid for, as would be the case on the 100-ton barges. Again, the 100-ton barges would be propelled by motor, and therefore the pace of these barges would be accelerated and their journeys would be shortened in time, and the whole thing would settle itself. The promoters of the Bill declined to allow such a reasonable concession to take place.
I do not propose for a moment to say that I can answer for the other canal systems of the country. I think that there are very few in which this type of barge exists in larger numbers than upon the Grand Junction. There is the case of the Yorkshire canals, and there, I understand, although women are on board, the conditions are very different from those which prevail in this large Midland canal. I ask the House to consider whether it is not better to concede a couple of years in order that this system may have an opportunity of working itself out. My Amendment asks for the insertion of the word "thirty-three" in place of the word "thirty-two," and this is only one year. The House has heard to-day at very great length the sufferings of these people and what they will suffer if this Bill is insisted upon, and I hope that the promoters will, at least, be merciful in the sense that they can give an additional year. If the promoters of the Bill would concede that year it would, at any rate, minimise, as far as possible, the sad anticipations of the honest population on the canals of this country.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that the promoters of the Bill are unable to accept the request of the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), which he put before the Committee upstairs with great moderation. After all, the question is whether these children are going to be uneducated for an additional year. That is really the point. The matter was fully discussed. The Chamberlain Committee made a most exhaustive inquiry into this as well as into other points. They sat for 12 days and examined 20 witnesses, and this particular point also received full consideration in the Committee upstairs. I very much re-
gret, wishful as I am to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's objection, that we are unable to accede to it.

Lieut.-Colonel GRANT MORDEN: I take great exception to the statement that the children are uneducated. I have in my hand letters from children of nine and 10 years of age which prove that the children are educated. I will read to the House what some of these children have written in order to show the kind of letters they can write. I have the following letter from the Boat School, Brent-ford, dated 4th December last:
I am very pleased to find that a nice surprise awaited me. It is very kind of you to send such nice books for us. I thank you very much for my book. … I enjoy it every day.…It is called 'Little Women'. It is all about four girls. My mistress said she read it when she was a little girl and liked it very much, so I know I shall like it. I want to thank you very much.—ROSE WRAY.
There is another letter from Ernest Palin, who says:
I thank you for sending the prize books. I am lucky this morning to have a prize book. I enjoy the book very much. My mother likes it too, and so we are all very happy.
A little girl, Margaret Hough, wrote in November:
I think it was very kind of you to send these beautiful books. Mine is called 'Water Babies.' Teacher gave it to me today. I like it very much. Mother likes it very much too.
There is another letter from Frank Ray, who writes:
We are very pleased"—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's remarks do not appear to be relevant to the Amendment, which is to postpone the date when the Act is to come into operation.

Lieut.-Colonel MORDEN: It has been said that these children are not being educated, and I say that if children of nine and 10 years of age can write letters of this kind, it is clear proof that they are being educated, and, what is more, they are helping to educate their fathers and mothers. These children take books home and read them to their parents. They read well, which shows that they are being educated. If anyone will take the trouble to go to the barges, meet the
parents, see the children and talk with them, they will find that the children can read and write better than most children in other places. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is a fact; I know them. These people are a splendid class. They live very much to themselves, they are good citizens, healthy citizens and their children are now being educated, and if they are allowed to go on as they have been doing, they will be perfectly happy and content. I cannot understand why people should want to interfere with good citizens. Why have they not the right to live their own lives, as they want to live them? They have the amenities of education, of which the children are taking full advantage, and they should be allowed to continue in their own way and not be made subject to a Bill which takes away the liberty of the subject.

Major LLEWELLIN: We have heard that those who are promoting this Bill are not prepared to accept a postponement, of a year before the first paragraph comes into operation. We should bear in mind what is likely to be the position of the parents if this part of the Bill comes into force at the appointed day. We know, or we shrewdly suspect, that the Ministry of Health are unwilling to say that at the present time there is sufficient accommodation available for these children at a cost which their parents are in a position to pay, otherwise that assurance would have been given from the Front Bench to-day. If that assurance had been given, the promoters of the Bill would willingly have accepted the proposed new Clause. The Government Department are not prepared to give that assurance, and we are thrown back therefore upon the possible action of some education authority which may be located some distance away from the parents. That authority may make application to get proper lodging for the children, but if proper lodging cannot be provided we shall find that the parents will be in danger of coming within Section 12 of the Children Act, which orders that if any person over the age of 16 years who has the custody, charge or care Of a child or young person neglects, abandons, or exposes such young person, he shall be guilty of an offence under that Act, for which he shall be liable to a fine of £100 or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period of
two years. Under that Section it has been held in the case of the King versus White that a father was guilty of such an offence for leaving a child on a doorstep, where it remained during one night.
3.0 p.m.
Into what position are we putting the parents under this Clause? We are saying to them: "If you keep these children on the barge during the school term, it shall be an offence for which on second conviction you are liable to go to prison." Under the existing law if the parents neglect or abandon the child they are liable to imprisonment. The local authority may not be in a position to say that there is a home for the children to go to, yet the promoters of the Bill will not accept a further period of one year, and these wretched parents may be put into the position not only of being separated from their children, but of having, on the one hand, to risk an offence under the Children Act, and, on the other hand, a new offence under this Act, although they may have no place to which they can take their children. It is only reasonable that they should be liven a longer period in order to make the necessary arrangements that the Bill compels them to make. Whatever the education authorities may do, the responsibility will still rest upon the parents to provide a home for the children. It may be that the education authority will be miles away from the parents and have no connection with the parents. It may decide to make application to the Board of Education, who may decide to grant the application, and if they do not we ought to have an assurance that some further time will be given to the parents to provide accommodation for their children.
The Bill is unfair to this small section of the community. I am obliged to the promoters of the Bill for having met very largely some of the remarks that I made on the Second Reading, by reducing the penalties that were then in the Bill, which were to be the same penalties as under Section 12 of the Children Act, far too high for a mere educational offence. However, there is inserted in the Bill a provision for imprisonment for a mere educational offence. I would have liked to have had as the penalty the same fine that exists in regard to other educational offences. When you
are putting the parents into the position of having to face imprisonment in regard to abandoning or neglecting their children and, on the other hand, having to face imprisonment under this Bill, it is unfair. The parents, quite properly, would like to keep the children in their own homes, and a longer period ought to be allowed than is provided in the Bill for making the necessary arrangements for homes into which the children can go. These people have not the same facilities as Members of this House. Their railway fares are not paid; they may be a long way from the place where the barge is registered and may have to make a considerable journey in order to make arrangements for a home, with which they can from time to time keep in touch, where they can send their children—a proper home from home, to which they feel that they can entrust their children. I ask the House and the promoters of the Bill to look at the matter in that light.

Dr. DAVIES: I desire to press this Amendment on the attention of the House. There is nothing more derogatory than to pass legislation which cannot be put into effect, and no Court in the country would convict a man for not sending his child to school if he said that there was no accommodation available; that he had tried to find it and had failed. The housing question for people with a low wage is most difficult. At the present moment there is a great lack of accommodation for people like these, and the whole object of the Slum Clearance Bill is to provide alternative accommodation for people who are living in slums and who cannot afford to pay a big rent. Even if that Bill is passed and is put into operation vigorously by local authorities it will be three or four or five years before any new houses are ready for these canal people at the termini of the canal routes.
The promoters of the Bill might say that they do not visualise these people living at the termini. They may say, "We do not want them to live in the slums at all, but in the country somewhere along the route of the canal; there will be accommodation in the villages and in the schools." That means that the fathers of these children will have to look for this
accommodation. They have to work every day—I do not know whether they work six or seven days a week—and the only time in which they will be able to look for this alternative rural accommodation is when they may be free. The time they will have to look for this new accommodation will be very limited. Hon. Members who may have had to move know the tremendous difficulty there is in finding suitable accommodation, and it would be very much harder for these people on the barges. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish !"] The hon. Member who has so politely interrupted appears to have no doubt in his own mind that there is plenty of accommodation. I wish he had the temerity and the courage to tell the Ministry of Health that there was plenty of accommodation, because no one would be more pleased than the Minister of Health to be able to say that there is plenty of accommodation in this country for people who live in slums. If the hon. Member is correct, we have been living in a fog of bewilderment for some years. But the hon. Member's interjection is not true. The difficulty of these parents will be very considerable, and I suggest that another 12 months, which is all we are asking for, is not too long to give them to find alternative accommodation. We are met in the House to-day, as we were met in the Committee upstairs, with a rigid and determined opposition from the promoters of the Bill to accept nothing which we are prepared to offer.

Captain BOURNE: A good deal of the discussion hitherto has turned on the question of the conditions which prevail in the basin of the Grand Junction Canal. I want to put the position on the smaller canals, and particularly the canal which runs from Birmingham to Oxford, turns partly north towards Bletchley and then runs down to Reading. In that canal system the only convenient place in which it would be possible to board- these children, if they were taken off the barges, is my own constituency, where the housing problem is already very serious. Very largely owing to the expansion of the Morris motor works we are already badly overcrowded, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the City Council to build houses fast enough to meet any extra demand. The vast majority of the houses at Oxford already contain at least two families. I
do not suggest that in Oxford we could not undertake the education of the barge children, but at the moment the housing problem in the city is so acute that even an extra year would be a God-send to those who would have the responsibility of providing extra housing accommodation.

Sir D. MACLEAN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 68.

Division No. 286.]
AYES.
[3.13 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Groves, Thomas E.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Grundy, Thomas W.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Alpass, J. H.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pole, Major D. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Price, M. P.


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Aske, Sir Robert
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rathbone, Eleanor


Astor, Viscountess
Haycock, A. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Atholl, Duchess of
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ayles, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Romeril, H. G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Rowson, Guy


Barr, James
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Bellamy, Albert
Horrabin, J. F.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Sanders, W. S.


Benson, G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Sawyer, G. F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scurr, John


Birkett, W. Norman
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sexton, James


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kennedy, Thomas
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brothers, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sherwood, G. H.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kinley, J.
Shield, George William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shinwell, E.


Burgess, F. G.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cameron, A. G.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Charleton, H. C.
Longbottom, A. W.
Snell, Harry


Chater, Daniel
Longden, F.
Sorensen, R.


Cluse, W. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Strauss, G. R.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lowth, Thomas
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, William G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Cowan, D. M.
McElwee, A.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Daggar, George
McEntee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dallas, George
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Tillett, Ben


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dukes, C.
Marjorlbanks, E. C.
Vaughan, D. J.


Duncan, Charles
Marley, J.
Viant, S. P.


Edmunds, J. E.
Mathers, George
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Matters, L. W.
Walker, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Maxton, James
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Messer, Fred
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Foot, Isaac
Mills, J. E.
West, F. R.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Morley, Ralph
Westwood, Joseph


Freeman, Peter
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroks)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Glassey, A. E.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gossling, A. G.
Paling, Wilfrid
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Gould, F.
Palmer, E. T.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Gray, Milner
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.
Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Balniel, Lord
Bracken, B.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey


Beaumont, M. W.
Butler, R. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Simms, Major-General J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Skelton, A. N.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smithers, Waldron


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, A. J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wells, Sydney R.


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.



Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Captain Hudson and Major Llewellin.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'thirty-two' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 71.

Division No. 287.]
AYES.
[3.22 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gould, F.
Oldfield, J. R.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gray, Milner
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Alpass, J. H.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Paling, Wilfrid


Arnott, John
Groves, Thomas E.
Palmer, E. T.


Aske, Sir Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Astor, Viscountess
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Atholl, Duchess of
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Ayles, Walter
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pole, Major D. G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Haycock, A. W.
Price, M. P.


Barr, James
Hayday, Arthur
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Benson, G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Romeril, H. G.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hollins, A.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkin, Daniel
Rowson, Guy


Birkett, W. Norman
Horrabin, J. F.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Brothers, M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Scurr, John


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sexton, James


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Kinley, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cameron, A. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shield, George William


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Chater, Daniel
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cove, William G.
Lowth, Thomas
Snell, Harry


Cowan, D. M.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sorensen, R.


Daggar, George
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Dallas, George
McEntee, V. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Dukes, C.
March, S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Duncan, Charles
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edmunds, J. E.
Marley, J.
Tillett, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Matters, L. W.
Vaughan, D. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Foot, Isaac
Melville, Sir James
Walkden, A. G.


Freeman, Peter
Messer, Fred
Walker, J.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mills, J. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Morley, Ralph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
West, F. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, Joseph


Gillett, George M.
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Glassey, A. E.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gossling, A. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Mr. Ede and Brigadier-General Makins.


Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beaumont, M. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Bracken, B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Simms, Major-General J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Butler, R. A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Longden, F.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wells, Sydney R.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Captain A. Hudson and Major Llewellin.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "seven."
I have the privilege of moving an Amendment which I hope will secure a certain amount of support from the other side as well as from this side. It is an Amendment in the interest of the children and will not kill the Bill. It involves the serious question as to whether, in the interest of the children and of the parents, action cannot be delayed from the age of five to the age of seven. My object in proposing this Amendment is to make the best of what we must realise is a bad job. We have to provide for the interests of the families on the canal boats, and it is a serious thing to break up the family life on these boats, even in the interests of the children. Those who were present at the meeting attended by the bargees and their wives on Monday recognised the strength of feeling aroused by this Bill. It may be quite right to overcome that, and it is our duty in certain directions in politics to take a strong line and overcome strong and conscientious feelings that may be roused. It will be a serious thing for us, however, if we take a strong line which is not absolutely the minimum required, when it is met with the deep-rooted objections which were voiced by the bargees and their wives last Monday. That being the case, we have to consider if it is
necessary to do what is obviously an unnatural thing and take the children away from their parents at the age of five.
My position has been rendered very difficult in the matter, because I have felt a good deal of sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who was Chairman of the Committee in 1921 which reported on the ultimate future of the child. I have felt that it is a serious question that if these children are living a life, however good we believe it to be for their present vocation on board a boat, which will confine them for all time to that kind of life, it will seriously handicap them in the future. It is quite clear that, sooner or later, the system which is at present aimed at in this Bill will come to an end, and that by degrees the position will work out by which the bargees will have their houses on shore, and they will work, just as the mercantile marine do, alone on board their boats, going backwards and forwards to their homes on shore. I think that that is the future towards which we are working.
The question is, therefore, whether we must meanwhile take these violent measures in order to fit the children for life if they are squeezed out of the canal boat world by motor traffic and have to find other employment. It is necessary for them to have a minimum education; that is where I have
a great deal of sympathy with the promoters of the Bill. We have whittled down the original proposals of the Bill, which were not based on educational needs but on what, I submit, were the spurious grounds of supposed injury to the health of the children. Now we have to consider whether it is necessary for their education to remove them from life on the canal boats at the age of five. The age of five is that at which children generally begin school, and if the position of these children were the same as that of others, there would be no reason to make any exception in their case; but we must take into account the fact that here we are rending children from their parents, we are imposing special difficulties upon them.
It is a serious deprivation to the children and the parents. We are interfering with the absolute natural rights of these parents, and they will hold those of us who vote for this Measure responsible. Therefore, we have to compare the advantages of the education which a child gains between the ages of five and seven with the advantages of family life. From age-long time children in Scotland have started school at the age of seven, and I always understood that that was based on the determination of the parents to keep the children with them until that age.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The age is the same in Scotland as it is in England.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: It is to-day, but it used not to be.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The age was seven until Scotland had to conform to the general uniformity that is so prevalent, unfortunately, in modern times. It has been the view of educationists generally that if a child is allowed to run wild, more or less, up to the age of seven, that is, with irregular teaching and training at home, and is then introduced to the uniform education of the schools, it will pick up learning all the more quickly because of having been allowed to grow up and develop on wider and more natural lines. Children are not really standing still when they are at home, any more than the seeds in the soil are standing still in this glorious month of May. The child organism is such that it is developing and growing, and sucking in experience where it can. There is a con-
siderable divergence of opinion amongst educationists generally as to the age at which it is best to take a child and systematise its training. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, which hon. Members opposite will realise. They often jeer at the opportunities which are afforded to the rich in regard to the education of their children. Those of us on this side of the House are able to afford what we think is best for our children, and we recognise that we could not do anything better to start our children in life than to give them the highest and best possible education we can possibly get for them.
What is the system of education which prevails amongst the better-to-do class? I do not mean the rich, and those who can afford a public-school or a university education for their children, but the great mass of the middle classes. The ordinary system they adopt is that they keep their children at home. They may send them to a day school, but as a rule until they are seven years of age they train them at home as well they can. There is a system of university education which starts at the age of 17, 18 and 19. Then we have the public endowed schools at which education starts at 12, 13 or 14 years of age. There is also the system of the preparatory schools where education starts at the age of 8, 9, or 10 years, although we sometimes send our children to school before they are eight years of age. Why should we impose upon bargemen that divorce from family life? If it is better for the children to be torn away from their surroundings and put into boarding houses in the town away from their parents, why do the middle classes not do it when they can afford it?

Mr. DUNCAN: At what age do your children go to work?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: They go to work from the very day they are able to work onwards. If the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) thinks that the only work is wage-earning, I think he had better go back to school and learn a little more. Work does not consist merely in earning wages. We do the work of the world in this House, and that is quite apart from wage-earning. I maintain again that even those parents who have to send their children to work in order to make ends meet and maintain
and develop the home do not send their children away from home to school until they are seven, eight, or nine years of age, and that is a complete and sufficient reason for making this exception in a Bill which so interferes with the liberty of family life. Therefore, I ask the House to agree to the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend really hit the nail on the head when he said that this Bill goes outside the ordinary sphere of education and does something that is quite new. Therefore, I think that this is a proper moment at which to consider the question, which was referred to earlier by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), whether it is desired to mould the children of those who live on these canal barges into exactly the same shape as every other child in the country, or whether, as my hon. and gallant Friend and I would suggest, the age should be put higher because of the special circumstances of that class of the community. The world of education to-day is very much exercised as to the right and proper age at which to send children to school and as to how long they should be kept there, and this particular House of Commons has every reason to be exercised in that matter, seeing that we are, apparently, at some time, to discuss a Government Measure with regard to raising the school age. It may very well be, and many educationists take this view, that, if you raise the school age at one end, it is possibly wise to raise it at the other end as well. Opinion is fluid. On the other hand, there are people like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who think that nursery schools are the thing. If nursery schools are the thing, why should we put the possibility of sending their children to nursery schools outside the scope of the canal population?
We must take it by and large, and, considering that this Bill makes the great departure of compelling parents to board out their children—whether at the public charge or not is not settled—and if they do not send them to school they are going to prison—considering the ex-
traordinary difference between that and the ordinary education system of the country, it seems to me to be right and proper to say that seven years is quite old enough when there is the risk of incurring penalties of this sort. I wonder was the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health boarded out at school at the age of five? I venture to doubt it; and, because the criticism that I am making on that point is not confined to her sex, I would also ask, was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster boarded out at school at the age of five? I do not suppose so for a moment. Again, taking the older generation, I wonder whether the First Commissioner of Works went off to school at the age of five, and whether his parents would have been sent to prison if he did not; while as for the Attorney-General I am quite certain that he did not. These are the sort of people on the Front Government Bench who are trying to force this unfortunate population on the canals, who earn their living in the most honest and respectable manner possible and who want to keep up their family connection with their children—these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen and Ladies, aided and assisted by the two Noble Ladies over here—

Viscountess ASTOR: And some Noble men.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The only Noble man who has spoken from this side is the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and I cannot in any circumstances accept his speech as having supported the Bill. I should think the Noble Lady who is so anxious in the cause of education would be prepared to accept the Amendment. She told us earlier on that there were only 468 families which had not got houses of their own on land. She got the information from an inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It is a most extraordinary thing that she did not quote the report of the inspector of the Ministry. I wonder how the Government like the Noble Lady's support when she gives them the evidence of a private authority, which has been so contradicted, and they do not bring out in support of her case the evidence which is available in the Government Department. If we raise the age from five to seven, we do
in fact more or less what we tried to do in the last Amendment, and that is to postpone the evil day for the canal population. We thereby give the local authorities concerned time to investigate how they are going to deal with these children. Section 23 of the Education Act says the local education authorities can consider whether they are going to make "such arrangements of a temporary or permanent character." It may very well be that the authorities that are at the termini would want to put up some permanent buildings, schools and so on, and by giving them this extra time we shall be making it easier for them.
All the time you come back to the fact that, if the parents do not send their children, they are liable to go to prison. The sinister aspect of the whole Bill is that there are so few people concerned. It does not matter saying you are keen educationists or anything else. I do not believe the Bill for raising the school age is going to make a criminal offence. There is no question of prison for the extra year at the other end. There is here for the children of the unfortunate canal population. I hope those in charge of the Measure will accept this very small Amendment, which is of very great importance indeed. I should say one of its advantages is that it will give the Government Department—I suppose it will come under the Board of Education in some way—an opportunity of finding out what happens in other countries where this problem must have arisen. England is not the only country in the world where there are canals and barges. It might very well be that arrangements that are in force in Belgium or in France might be translated into this country. A little more time, which is the inevitable result of the acceptance of the Amendment, would enable that to be done.
After all, the Government Bench has given us extraordinarily little guidance. We have already complained of the absence of any legal representative, or any legal advice. I say that not as a general accusation, though it is perfectly justified as a general accusation, but with regard to this Amendment. The Clause says that these children should not be allowed
to reside on barges except either during the week-end or on holidays. There is a proviso that a registered medical practitioner can certify that, in the interest of his own health, he ought not to go to school. Any ordinary person would take his own health as referring to the medical practitioner and not to the child. We have had no information from the Government Bench, but I have consulted two legal Members of great eminence on this side of the House and they both bear out my lay opinion that that is what those words mean, as drafted. Really, to expect to get a Clause of this importance without any advice from the legal officers, seems to be rather too much of a good thing. I am particularly glad to be able to second the Amendment, because my constituency is one in which we have a good many people who are concerned with barges. We have a wonderful system of drainage dating back to the time of the Normans. I took the trouble—[Interruption.]. If the Noble Lady wishes to say something, I will willingly give way to her.

Viscountess ASTOR: I wanted only to state that the hon. and gallant Member is the cleverest obstructionist in this House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker? I do not know whether I can raise the matter on a point of Order, but I think that it is improper for the Noble Lady, after I gave way to her and thought that she was going to speak about my canal constituents, to make a perfectly unfounded accusation. In asking for your protection, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is your intention to ask her to withdraw that remark?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that last Friday when an hon. Member asked me the same thing, I said that I had often heard that accusation made before in this House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It seems most extraordinary that the Noble Lady, who ought to know better and who has been in this House longer than I, and who is much older than I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—and who, in view of the fact that she has a family and I am a bachelor, is far more fitted to deal
with the subject of children than I, should not be original, but should repeat the sort of accusation which was apparently made last Friday against somebody else. We do expect originality from the Noble Lady. I think that it is most ungracious of her not to withdraw that very uncalled-for remark. I was saying that I took the trouble to ask those responsible for education in my constituency whether they thought that it, was desirable that these children should be compelled to go to school at five. They have arrangements there by which children on the barges attend school in the same sort of way as they do elsewhere. They expressed the view to me that they were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements which were now in existence.

Sir D. MACLEAN: rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is impossible to carry on a lucid argument with the interruptions of the Noble Lady on one side and those of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, who was in the House long before I was born. I was going on to say—

It being Four of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock until Monday next, 12th May.